1

SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM IN THE VILLAGE OF KHIRIWONG AND

THE KHAO LUANG NATIONAL PARK, THAILAND

by

Kitsada Tungchawal

A Research Paper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Master of Science Degree With a Major in

Hospitality and Tourism

Approved: 6 Semester Credits

Leland L. Nicholls, Ph.D.

Thesis Advisor

Thesis Committee Members:

Bob Davies, Ed.S.

Kenneth Parejko, Ph.D.

The Graduate College

University of Wisconsin-Stout January, 2001

2

The Graduate College University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI 54751

ABSTRACT Tungchawal Kitsada (Writer) (Last Name) (First) Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, Thailand (Title) Hospitality and Tourism Leland L. Nicholls, Ph.D. January, 2001 216 (Graduate Major) (Research Advisor) (Month/Year) (No. of Pages) American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual

(Name of Style Manual Used in this study)

Sustainable ecotourism is often considered to be effective for supporting the local

communities’ economy and promoting the conservation of protected areas in developing

countries. By establishing economic benefits for impoverished villagers or their

communities, sustainable ecotourism is utilized to encourage local guardianship of

natural resources. To assess sustainable ecotourism’s impact on the revenue of local

residents in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, and its effects

on the environmental preservation of the Khao Luang National Park in Nakhon Si

Thammarat Province, Thailand, the researcher randomly conducted surveys of the

visitors’ attitudes about rewarding experiences during their village and park visits.

Biologists and Ecologists were interviewed about sustainable ecotourism’s role in

supporting environmental preservation in the village and national park. Also, local

residents in the village, as beneficiaries, were asked by the researcher to provide their

perceptions about the relationship of sustainable ecotourism to cultural disruption.

3

To examine the sustainable ecotourism in the village and the national park and

learn whether it provides the visitors with rewarding experiences, a qualitative research

was conducted in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park at Karom

Unit, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Thailand. The visitors were asked to state their

opinions via questionnaires after their village and national park visits. Sustainable

ecotourism in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park were

investigated as to whether it helped support environmental conservation. The national

park staff and the villagers were randomly selected for personal interviews by the

researcher. A comprehensive literature review was conducted about tourism in protected

areas, the tourists and ecotourists, host community and sustainable ecotourism, local

attitudes, economic impacts, social impacts and environmental impacts caused by

tourism, carrying capacity, tourism and sustainable development, and tourism and

recreation in remote and sensitive destinations. The research methodology in this study

centered upon on-site field observation and mailed and personal interview surveys.

Visitors to the village and the national park were asked to complete the survey

questionnaires, which were designed and prepared in Thai and English versions. Experts

in environmental biology and ecology and local residents were interviewed by the

researcher in person with the questions in both Thai and English. The survey was taken

during the two-month stay in the village from September 6th to November 6th, 2000. After

completing the data collection, the researcher brought the raw results to the United States

of America for compilation and analysis. The survey information was analyzed to

describe the sustainable ecotourism in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park in terms of rewarding experiences, environmental preservation, social and

4

cultural impacts and economic benefits. Suggestions and recommendations about

maintaining and improving sustainable ecotourism in the destinations were established by

the findings. The findings were evaluated using proposed sustainable ecotourism

elements in the village and park. Besides providing visitors rewarding experiences,

sustainable ecotourism became an instrument in natural resource conservation such as

water use. The village tourism brought benefits and income to most local residents with

tourism involvement. The local residents agreed with the village and park tourism that

they needed more education to support the village and park tourism. Tourism improved

access, stimulated new services and conveniences like roads but social problems also

could be found. Numerous implications for concessions, national park and protected

areas management, local participation, relationships between the village and park,

environmental and cultural impacts caused by tourism were discussed.

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To my grandmother-Mrs Thong-Jua Wongpanit, my parents- Mr Jumpol and Mrs Sudchit Tungchawal, my sisters-Ms Pornthip and Ms Atiporn Tungchawal, my aunt- Ms Nuan-Jan Yensudjai, Thailand. To my thesis advisor Professor Dr. Leland Nicholls and the committee members Dr. Kenneth Parejko and Professor Bob Davies in the Hospitality and Tourism Graduate Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. To all my other professors at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. To my host family in the Village of Khiriwong, Mrs Ajin Julakarn, Mr Theerapan Julakarn and his family. To Associate Professor Puang-Bu-Nga Poom-mi-panit at the Travel and Tourism Department, Faculty of Humanities, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. To all my teachers at Prommanusorn School, Phetchaburi, Thailand. To Ajarn Boonchoo Seneewong Na Ayutthaya, Wat Don Kai Tia School, Phetchaburi, Thailand. To all my students majoring in Tourism (1998) at the Rajabhat Institute Phetchaburi. To all local residents at the Village of Khiriwong. To the professors in Ecology and Biology at the Rajabhat Institute Nakhon Si Thammarat Province. To the park staff of the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit. To all friends at the Khao Kaew Community, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province. To all visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park. To my American host family-Mr Cliff, Mrs Sharon and Mr Luke Abbate, Menomonie, Wisconsin. To all staff at the Price Commons, University of Wisconsin-Stout. To my Thai and other international friends at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. To all friends and colleagues at the Rajabhat Institute Phetchaburi, Thailand. To Mrs. Mary Jean Nicholls. To my alter ego friends-Sakda Kaothanthong, Arthit Pansaita, Uan Siriwan, Ple Saengduan, Aeh Jariya, Supapan, Jamari, Kae Yoothapoom, Niorn Srisomyong, Rosawan Pipitmethanon, Suwit Sritrairasri, Amy Hsueh, Joe Dhammadit, Lumb Puckdi, Jesse Hunter, David Theobald, Amy Kuznia, Dan Pfister, John Oman, Chai Jaturon, Por Morakot, Poy Duangrawee, etc. To Khun Jumpol Chadavadh, the Managing Director, P&O Regale Travel Co.,Ltd. Bangkok, Thailand.

You Made My Day.

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………….. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………….. v LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………… x LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….. xiv LIST OF MAPS…………………………………………………………….…….. xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction………………………………………………………………… 1 Research sites and geographical situations………………………………… 5 Statement of the problem…………………………………………………... 6 Potential benefits of the study …………………………………………….. 7 Conclusions………………………………………………………………… 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 9 Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development………………………. 10

Nature tourism and sustainable tourism…………………………………… 11 Rural areas…………………………………………………………………. 12

Tourism to protected areas………………………………………………… 13 Ecotourism…………………………………………………………………. 15 The tourist and the ecotourist……………………………………………… 17 Host country governments…………………………………………………. 19 Host community and sustainable tourism………………………………….. 20 Local attitudes……………………………………………………………… 22 Economic impacts…………………………………………………………. 23 Environmental impacts……………………………………………………. 23 Social impacts …………………………………………………………….. 24 Socio-cultural impacts……………………………………………………... 25 Carrying capacity………………………………………………………….. 26 Tourism and sustainable development….………………………………….. 27 Sustainability planning…………………………………………………….. 28

Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination………………………………………….. 29

How to manage the social, environmental and cultural impacts of sustainable ecotourism………………………………………………… 30

Thailand and sustainable ecotourism……………………………………… 30 The Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat…………………………………… 31 The Khao Luang National Park……………………………………………. 37 The Village of Khiriwong………………………………………………….. 38 Conclusions………………………………………………………………… 49

7

Page CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang National Park study……….. 52 Instrument………………………………………………………….. 53 Procedures………………………………………………………….. 56 Survey questionnaires for the visitors to the Village of Khiriwong

and the Khao Luang National Park and data analysis ………….. 57 Sample selection…………………………………………………… 58 Survey administration……………………………………………... 59 Interview questions for the experts in Biology and Ecology………. 61 Interview questions for the park staff of the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit……………………………………………... 62 Sample selection…………………………………………………… 63 Survey administration……………………………………………... 64 Interview questions for the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong…………………………………………………….. 64 Sample selection…………………………………………………… 66 Survey administration……………………………………………... 66 Limitations of study……………………………………………….. 68

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong………………………………………. 71 Respondent profile…………………………………………………. 72

Motivations for visiting the village………………………………… 73 Preferences about village stay …………………………………….. 74

The visitors’ dislikes of the village stay…………………………… 75 Souvenirs and services visitors would like to have available in the village……………………………………………………… 75 Expectations from the trip to the village…………………………… 77 Perceptions in the elements of sustainable ecotourism in the village……………………………………………………… 78 Notion of the local guides’ training and ability in the village……... 79 Transportation to the village……………………………………….. 80 Length of stay ……………………………………………………... 81 Accommodations in the village…………………………………... 81 Number in travel party…………………………………………….. 82 How the visitors learn about the village………………………….. 83 Level of satisfaction with the village tourism……………………… 87

8

Page Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit ……………… 88

Respondent profile…………………………………………………. 89 Motivations for visiting the park……………………………………89 Preferences and dislikes about the park tourism…………………… 90 Gifts, souvenirs and services visitors would like to have available in the park………………………………………………. 91 Expectations from the trip to the park………………………………93 Perceptions in the elements of sustainable ecotourism in the park………………………………………………………… 94 Visitors’ experiences perceived in best characteristics the park provided………………………………………………… 95 Perception of the local guides’ training and ability in the park……. 96 Transportation to the park………………………………………….. 96

Length of stay……………………………………………………… 97 Accommodations in the park…………………………………….. 98 Number in travel party…………………………………………….. 98 How the visitors learn about the park…………………………….. 99 Level of satisfaction with park tourism………..………………….. 103

The Interviews with experts in Biology and Ecology ……………………... 104

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong………………………………. 105 The best mode of transportation required to travel to the Village of Khiriwong………………………………………… 105 The Village of Khiriwong’s waste disposal management………… 106 The recommended design, architectural style and facilities for the Village of Khiriwong….………………………………………….. 107 The Village of Khiriwong’s means to distribute tourism Information about the desired behavior suitable to the surroundings………………………………………………….. 108 The impacts of tourism on ecosystems in the village ……….…… 109 Agreement with the tourism activities provided by the Village of Khiriwong..………………………………………….. 110 Perception of ideal trips to the Village of Khiriwong……………. 110

Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit……………….. 112

The appropriate mode of transportation required to travel to and in the park………………………………………………… 113 The park’s suitable waste disposal management…………………... 114 The recommended design, architectural style and facilities for the park……………………………………………… 114

9

Page The park’s means to distribute tourism information about desired behavior…………….…………………………………... 115 The environmental impact of park tourism on ecosystems.……….. 116 Agreement with the tourism activities provided by the park………. 117 Perception of the ideal trips to the park……………………………. 117

The Interviews with Khao Luang National Park staff……………………... 119

Regular mode of travel to and in the park…………………………. 120 The visitor carrying capacity………………………………………. 120 Waste disposal management……………………………………….. 121 Accommodation designs, architectural style and facilities………… 121 Tourist information distribution about the park and protected areas to visitors in term of environmental conservation…………. 122 Environmental impacts of tourism activities on ecosystems………. 123 Agreement with tourism used as a means to protect the park……… 124 Collaborative relationship between the Khao Luang National Park and the Village of Khiriwong……………………………………. 124 The ideal trips to the protected areas………………………………. 125

The interviews with the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong..……. 128 Local residents’ perception of tourism impact Ecological and environmental aspect………………………. 129 Economical aspect…………………………………………. 130

Political aspect……………………………………………... 130 Social aspect……………………………………………….. 131 Tourism employment………………………………………………. 132 Economic benefits of tourism to the community………………….. 133 Local residents’ involvement in tourism activities………………… 133

Natural resource consumption to support the village tourism……... 136 Attitude toward sustainable ecotourism….………………………... 138 Local residents’ needs for improving sustainable ecotourism……... 139 Way of life after the arrival of tourism…………………………….. 143 Current adverse tourism impacts…………………………………... 146 Collaborative relationship between the Khao Luang National Park and the Village of Khiriwong……………………………………. 150 Plans and operations favorable to developing the environment and ecosystems in the village…………………………………….. 152

Conclusions………………………………………………………… 152 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Restatement of problem and research objectives………………………….. 158 Summary of methodology…………………………………………………. 159 Discussion of significant findings………………………………………… 160

10

Page

Research objective 1………………………………………………………. 160 Research objective 2………………………………………………………. 163

Research objective 3 ……………………………………………………... 165 Conclusions………………………………………………………………... 167 Recommendations for the Village of Khiriwong………………………… 168 Recommendations for the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit….. 171 Recommendations for future study………………………………………… 173 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….. 175 APPENDIXES

A Survey questionnaires for the visitors to the Village of Khiriwong.. 185 B Survey questionnaires for the visitors to

the Khao Luang National Park…………………………………….. 189 C Interview questions for the experts in Biology and Ecology

about tourism in the Village of Khiriwong…..…………………... 193 D Interview questions for the experts in Biology and Ecology

about tourism in the Khao Luang National Park….……………….. 195 E Interview questions for the Khao Luang National Park staff……… 197 F Interview questions for the local residents

in the Village of Khiriwong……………………………………..… 199

11

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Demographic data of the Khiriwong Village………………………………. 39 2 The Khiriwong Village’s public utility and local infrastructure…………… 40 3 Tourism activities in the Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang

National Park………………………………………………………………. 46 4 The village tourism and cost list…………………………………………… 47 5 Tour program and cost list…………………………………………………. 47 6 Survey administration……………………………………………………… 60 7 Survey respondents ………………………………………………………... 60 8 Sample selection at the Khao Luang National Park ……………………… 64 9 Sample selection in the Village of Khiriwong..….……………………….. 66 10 Number of residents about the village tourism…………………………….. 72 11 Motivations for visiting the Village of Khiriwong………………………. 73 12 Visitors’ preferences during the village stay………………………………. 74 13 Visitors’ dislikes of the village stay………………………………………... 75 14 Gifts and souvenirs visitors would like to have available in the village…… 75 15 Services visitors would like to have available in the village………………. 76 16 Visitors’ expectations from the trips to the village………………………… 77 17 Visitors’ perceptions of sustainable ecotourism elements the village

best meets…………………………………………………………………. 78 18 Visitors’ notion of local guides’ training and ability………………………. 79 19 Visitors’ transportation to the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat……….. 80 20 Visitors’ transportation from the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat to the village………………………………………………………………………. 80 21 Visitors’ average length of stay in the village…………………………….. 81 22 Visitors’ accommodation during their stay in the village………………….. 81 23 Visitors’ number in travel party to the village ……………………………. 82 24 How visitors learned about the village…..………………………………… 83 25 Visitors’ gender…………………………………………………………… 83 26 Visitors’ nationality……………………………………………………….. 84 27 Visitors’ place of origin…………………………………………………... 84 28 Visitors’ occupation………………………………………………………... 85 29 Visitors’ average income…………………………………………………... 85 30 Visitors’ age………………………………………………………………... 86 31 Visitors’ plans to visit the village again………………………………….. 86 32 Visitors’ satisfaction with their visits to the Village of Khiriwong……….. 87 33 Visitors’ motivations for visiting the Khao Luang National Park…………. 89 34 Visitors’ preferences after visiting the park……………………………….. 90 35 Gifts and souvenirs visitors would like to have available in the park……... 91 36 Services visitors would like to have available in the park…………………. 92 37 Visitors’ expectations on visiting the park………………………………….93

12

Table Page 38 Visitors’ perceptions of sustainable ecotourism elements the park

best meets…………………………………………………………………... 94 39 Visitors’ opinions of the best characteristics the park provided…………… 95 40 Visitors’ perceptions of the local guides’ training and ability…………… 96 41 Visitors’ modes of transportation to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat… 96 42 Visitors’ modes of transportation from the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat to the park………………………………………………………………….. 97 43 Visitors’ average length of stay in the park……………………………….. 97 44 Visitors’ accommodations in the park………………………………….… 98 45 Visitors’ number in travel party to the park……………………………….. 98 46 How visitors learned about the park……………………………………….. 99 47 Visitors’ gender…………………………………………………………… 99 48 Visitors’ nationality……………………………………………………….. 99 49 Visitors’ place of origin…………………………………………………… 100 50 Visitors’ occupation……………………………………………………….. 100 51 Visitors’ average income…………………………………………………. 101 52 Visitors’ age………………………………………………………………. 102 53 Visitors’ plans to visit the park again……………………………………… 102 54 Visitors’ satisfaction with their visits to the Khao Luang National Park…. 103 55 Experts’ recommended travel modes to the Village of Khiriwong ……… 105 56 Experts’ recommendation for waste disposal management by the village……………………………………………………………… 106 57 Experts’ recommended accommodations the village should provide for visitors………………………………………………………………… 107 58 Experts’ recommended modes of tourist information for desired behavior…………………………………………………………………… 108 59 Experts’ perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism activities in the village………………………………………………………………. 109 60 Experts’ agreement with tourism provided by the village………………… 110 61 Experts’ perceptions of the ideal trips to the Village of Khiriwong……….. 110 62 Experts’ gender……………………………………………………………. 111 63 Experts’ perceptions of travel modes recommended to the park………… 113 64 Experts’ recommendations for waste disposal management by the park… 114 65 Experts’ suggested accommodations the park should provide for visitors………………………………………………………………… 114 66 Experts’ recommended modes of tourist information for desired behavior while visiting the park……………………………………………………. 115 67 Experts’ perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism activities in the park…………………………………………………………………. 116 68 Experts’ agreement with tourism provided by the park…………………... 117 69 Experts’ perceptions of ideal trips to the Khao Luang National Park…… 117 70 Experts’ gender……………………………………………………………. 118 71 Regular mode of travel to the park…….…………………………………. 120 72 Waste disposal management in the park…………………………………. 121

13

Table Page 73 Means to provide information about the park and the protected areas to visitors…………………………………………………………………. 122 74 Park staff’s perception of environmental impacts of activities caused by the park………………………………………………………………… 123 75 Park staff’s agreement with park tourism………………………………… 124 76 Park staff’s collaborative relationship with the Village of Khiriwong……. 124 77 Park staff’s average income………………………………………………. 125 78 Park staff’s gender………………………………………………………… 125 79 Local residents’ perception of ecological aspect…………………………. 129 80 Local residents’ perception of economic aspect…………………………. 130 81 Local residents’ perception of political aspect…………………………… 130 82 Local residents’ perception of social aspect……………………………… 131 83 Local residents’ perception of employment caused by tourism…………. 132 84 Local residents’ perception of tourism benefits to the community………. 133 85 Local residents’ occupation classification

referring to Supply of goods and services……………………………….... 133 86 Local residents’ occupation classification

referring to Sale of handicrafts…………………………………………….. 134 87 Local residents’ occupation classification

referring to Traditional entertainment and activity………………………… 134 88 Local residents’ occupation classification……………………………….. 135 89 Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism referring to Water use and conservation……………… 136 90 Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism referring to Energy …………………………………… 136 91 Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism referring to Recycling………………………………… 137 92 Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism………………………………………………………… 138 93 Local residents’ agreement with the village tourism …………………… 138 94 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

referring to Access to goods and services………………………………… 139 95 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

referring to Quality access to health care………………………………… 140 96 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

referring to Education ……………………………………………………. 141 97 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

referring to Communication infrastructure………………………………... 141 98 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

referring to Transportation infrastructure…………………………………. 142 99 Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism……… 143 100 Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

referring to Gaining better education …………………………………….. 143

14

Table Page 101 Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

referring to Gaining better living………………………………………….. 144 102 Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

referring to Gaining more income…………………………………………. 145 103 Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism… 146 104 Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village

tourism referring to Local culture has been altered… …………………….. 146 105 Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village

tourism referring to Lifestyle has been changed ………………………….. 147 106 Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village

tourism referring to Increased garbage and wastes ……………………….. 148 107 Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village

tourism referring to Increased demand on local resources ……………….. 148 108 Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village

tourism…………………………………………………………………….. 149 109 Local residents’ perception of collaborative relationship

between the village and the Khao Luang National Park….……………….. 150 110 Local residents’ average income…………………………………………... 151 111 Local residents’ gender…………………………………………………….. 151

15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 Number of visitors to the Khao Luang National Park…………………….. 37 2 Betel nuts (Areca catechu Linn. Palmae)…………………………………. 41 3 Durians (Durio zibethinus Linn. Bombacaceae)………………………….. 41 4 Mangosteens (Garcinia mangostana Linn. Guttiferae)…………………… 41 5 Sato (Parkia speciosa Hassk. Mimosaceae)………………………………. 42 6 Langsat and Longkong (Lansium domesticum Hutchinson. Meliaceae)….. 42 7 Luk Niang (Archidendron jiringa Nielsen.)…..…………………………… 42 8 Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk.) – Moraceae…………………. 42 9 Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum Linn. Sapindaceae)…………………… 43 10 An example of agro-forests in the Village of Khiriwong………….……… 44

16

LIST OF MAPS

Map Page 1 Southeast Asia……………………………………………………………… 3 2 Southern Thailand and Nakhon Si Thammarat Province………………….. 32 3 Average annual rainfalls of Thailand……………………………………… 34 4 Khao Luang National Park and the Village of Khiriwong………………… 36 5 The Khiriwong Village……………………………………………………. 39

17

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Tourism has developed swiftly during the past four decades and is predicted to

become the world’s leading economic activity by the year 2000 (Coccossis, 1996).

Tourism is about people and landscapes, the locations which one group of people leave,

visit and pass through, the other groups who make their trips possible and those groups

they meet along the way. According to Pearce (1995), tourism may be taken into account

as the relationships and phenomena emerging from the voyages and temporary stays of

people traveling mainly for leisure or recreational objectives. It is prone to continue

developing in the future because more people seek opportunities for leisure and

recreation away from their surroundings. The expansion of tourism has had a significant

impact on a host of destination areas. Jansen-Venbeke and Dietvorst (1987) believe the

terms leisure, recreation and tourism are closely related, with emphasis on the

characteristics of experience and activity. Marthieson and Wall (1982) observed that

three fundamental components of tourism provide a dynamic content linked to travel to a

chosen location. A static content, which is related to a stay at the destination and the

outcome, is derived from those contents. This is connected to the tourists’ direct and

indirect impacts on the economic, social and environmental systems.

The World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) noted that

sustainable tourism is inevitably related to the ethic of sustainable development. Its

concepts support the finding that people struggle to satisfy their current needs without

interfering with the capability of following generations to meet their own needs.

According to Butler’s controversial definition in 1993, sustainable tourism is developed

18

and maintained in an area of community or environment in such a manner and at such a

scale that it exists over an endless time and does not spoil or affect the human and

physical surroundings. Coccossis (1996) also concluded that the expansion of tourism

has had an effect on numerous times. These effects come from the activities of

transporting and nourishing people, causing social, economic and environmental impacts.

The idea of sustainable tourism includes a challenge to develop the world’s

tourism capacity and the quality of its products without negatively affecting the

environment that sustains and nourishes them (Hawk and William, 1993). Additional

terms for sustainable tourism include alternative tourism, rural tourism, green tourism,

appropriate tourism, responsible tourism or progressive tourism (Lane 1990; Butler 1990

and Wheeler 1992). Ecotourism also yields opportunities for sustainable tourism

(Romeril 1989; Travis 1988; Farrell and McLellan 1987). Fennell (1999) found the

relationship between nature based-tourism and ecotourism as follows:

Ecotourism is a sustainable form of natural resource-based tourism that focuses primarily on experiencing and learning about nature, and which is ethically managed to be low-impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented (control, benefits, and scale). It typically occurs in natural areas, and should contribute to the conservation or preservation of such areas. (p. 43)

19

Map 1. Southeast Asia

Southeast Asia is among the most rapidly thriving destination regions in the world

(WTO, 1996). Yet, an increase in the growth of tourism in the region took place as a

result of the financial crisis of most traditional tourism destinations. WTO (1998)

reported that in Asia and the Pacific, regardless of the region’s impressive growth

performance in recent years, many countries have recently experienced financial market

pressures connected to the appreciating US dollar, thus aggravating the tension. The

pressures were most severe in Thailand in 1997, but spillovers from the crisis in Thailand

were also felt by other countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and

Singapore, and continued into 1998. The growth of tourism in Southeast Asia is

concerned in part with the region’s much greater overall economic performance (Weaver,

1998). In the mean time, Weaver also argued that while tourism in Southeast Asia has

20

adverse economic, socio-cultural and environmental effects, it enhances regional well-

being and generates strong and diverse national economies. Thailand has experienced

satisfying growth in its international tourism industry with stay-over arrivals increasing

up to 7.7 million in 1998 from 1.4 million in 1978 (WTO, 1998). Chudintra (1993) found

that approximately one million overseas tourists, largely from the western countries, visit

the protected areas in Thailand with ecotourism-oriented activities. This accounts for 20-

25% of international tourists. Furthermore, approximately 60% of the 50 million annual

domestic trips occurred in Thailand’s nature-based tourism (Widener, 1996). According

to the WTO information in 1999, The PATA (Pacific Asia Travel Association) awarded

Thailand the Gold Award for their ecotourism pilot project.

Plains, highlands and low hills blanket most of Thailand’s 514,000 square

kilometers. The mountainous zone is situated along the western and northern border with

Myanmar and along the northeastern border with Laos (Stewart-Cox, 1995). World

Resources Institute (1994) explained that the biological resources of Thailand are

enormous, including thousands of kinds of higher plants, birds and mammals such as

hornbills, gibbons. Those unique characteristics urge the nature seekers all over the

world to experience the natural resources of the country.

21

Research sites and geographical situations

The Khiriwong Village is a beautiful community blanketed with natural

resources. It is a peaceful community situated in western Na Khon Si Thammarat

Province. The village itself is surrounded by the sizeable and precipitous mountains in the

renowned Khao Luang National Park. The Khiriwong Village of 678 households has

established local activities and a cooperative. Environmental protection and maintaining

their original way of life is a main community task. The village has the potential of

sustainable tourism, based on local biodiversity, culture and way of life. The Khao Luang

National Park is one of the most valuable natural landscapes in Thailand and in the world.

The national park with 570 square kilometers, mostly occupied by rain forest and

mountainous areas, is located close to the Khiriwong Village and supplies the villagers

with food and recreation. The highest peak of its mountainous range is approximately

1,835 meters above the sea level, and receives heavy monsoons especially in November

from both the Indian Sea and the Gulf of Thailand. In consequence, this area is

remarkably well endowed with indigenous flora and fauna, which can be found only in

this national park (Tourism Authority of Thailand Magazine, 1996).

In collaboration with the Villagers of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National

Park staff, two extensive research strategies were employed by the author. They focused

on the villagers and the adjoining national park.

A. Village study was based upon the following:

1. the great significance of traditional cultures in the southern area and the

need for the researchers to obtain primary data about local life and culture;

2. the importance of the village as a sustainable settlement; and

22

3. the importance of the village institution and its potential significance for

the implementation of sustainable development strategies.

B. Relationship between the village and the national park:

1. population and culture;

2. sustainable ecotourism; and

3. natural resources.

Statement of the problem

The major purpose of the study was to identify the economic, environmental,

social and institutional benefits in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National

Park. These elements were much involved with routine life, home craft industry,

agriculture and natural resources that are related strongly to domestic tourism. Besides

the collection of the available foundation data, observational research was conducted on

such topics as the impact on the Khiriwong Village and on the management of the

national park of tourism, and the tourism employment in the village.

Objectives

The study concentrated on the following objectives:

a) to determine whether sustainable ecotourism provides the customers with a

rewarding experience;

b) to determine whether sustainable ecotourism contributes to environmental

conservation; and

c) to determine whether sustainable ecotourism brings economic benefits to the

receiving community without also causing cultural disruption.

23

Potential benefits of the study

Host Residents and Community Benefits

The host residents and community will able to:

1. obtain education concerning the values and attribution of the natural resources

and protected areas in their communities and surroundings;

2. become aware of the protected areas which nourish their living and the host

residents; including the values of their precious natural resources,

environment and traditional culture;

3. enhance inspiration and encouragement to participate in policy making and

tourism planning and development useful to their community in the present

and future;

4. participate in reducing the adverse impacts of tourism, such as improper and

inappropriate patterns of tourism development; and

5. increase community acceptance of tourism and tourist behavior.

The national park’s benefits

The Khao Luang National Park staff and administrators will be able to:

1. better discern the readiness of the community for further sustainable tourism

development with the park’s cooperation; and

2. understand how to employ appropriate methods to educate and encourage

local residents through a viable sustainable tourism development policy; and

provide a balanced development plan, which meets the needs of the local

24

residents, the economy, society, environment and institution of the Village of

Khiriwong.

Conclusions

Thailand’s sustainable ecotourism, which is dependent on ecology, environment

and host communities, is now being widely promoted by communities and the

government. The Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang National Park, Thailand are

appropriate places to investigate the roles that the sustainable ecotourism can perform in

visitors’ rewarding experiences, environmental conservation and the residents’ local

culture and way of life. The objectives of this study are to identify whether sustainable

ecotourism provides the visitors with a satisfactory experience, whether sustainable

ecotourism is instrumental to environmental conservation, and whether sustainable

ecotourism brings economic benefits to the beneficiaries without also causing cultural

disruption. The benefits of this study will be useful for the host residents, the community

and the national park. To follow a study of sustainable ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, the next Chapter 2 was composed of the

review of literatures in several sustainable ecotourism subjects, which were compiled

from the previous studies and research in this tourism field.

25

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Sustainable tourism is apparently an extensive, poorly-defined area that includes

numerous components of the tourism system. Nevertheless, there are multitudes of

significant stakeholders in the field of sustainable tourism that are explained in the

following information. It is no surprise that it is quite difficult to reach a mutual

understanding of what sustainable tourism means and how it can be accomplished.

The review of literature will be divided into subjects most relevant to this

research. These relevant areas include: ecotourism and its roles in sustainable

development, nature tourism and sustainable tourism, rural areas, tourism to protected

areas, ecotourism, the tourist and the ecotourist, host country government, host

communities and sustainable tourism, local attitudes, economic impacts, environmental

impacts, social impacts, socio-cultural impacts, carrying capacity, tourism and

sustainable development, sustainability planning, tools for sustainability analysis in

planning and managing tourism and recreation in the destination, and managing the

social, environmental and cultural impacts of sustainable ecotourism. The research,

however, resulted in a small number of resources on this subject and expressly the studies

of sustainable ecotourism in Thailand. Therefore, this literature review will, more or less,

encourage and endorse other researchers to study more about catchall Thailand’s

sustainable ecotourism in the future.

26

Ecotourism and its role in sustainable development

Coccossis (1996) stated that the extension of tourism has affected a multitude of

tourism destinations and several activities from transporting to nourishing people. The

social, economic and environmental impacts of tourism are numerous and diverse.

Owing to Whelan’s (1991) notion, it is astonishing with the potential of tourism’s part in

the conservation of the region’s uncommon and picturesque natural resources. There are

strong economic pressures on the local residents in the developed world and any other

country to overuse their natural resources. Quite a few countries have established

protected areas to be reserved for this controversial issue. Ecotourism can become a

sustainable and rather simple option. It certainly brings about employment and income to

local communities and brings foreign revenue to the host government, at the same time

allowing the continued existence of the natural resources. It can provide local

communities the legal authority, giving them an attitude of ownership of their natural

resources and maintaining the status quo. It can teach travelers about the significance of

the ecosystems and effectively link them in the conservation endeavor. Also, it has the

possibility to distribute economic benefits and decline environmental costs. It is vital to

get through ecotourism’s role in the sustainable development of natural areas and to meet

the target of how ecotourism can be planned for both ecological reaction and economical

supply.

27

Nature tourism and sustainable tourism

Epler Wood, Gatz and Lindberg (1991) found that the intent to travel to natural

areas is to discern the culture and the natural background of the surroundings. This

purpose will not disturb the unity of the ecosystem and will generate economic chances

that provide the conservation of the natural resources profitably to the local residents.

Repetto (1991) supported that nature-based tourism is thriving. Meanwhile, an increasing

number of travelers set off in quest for the uncontaminated natural environment and

peculiar cultural experiences the developing world has to offer. World Resources Institute

(1991) also found that nature tourism is being expanded because of the repetitive seaside

and city tourism. People desire to spend their holidays in untamed natural circumstances,

which sometimes attract them by an unfamiliar local culture. Nature tourism is a

miraculous phenomenon for sustainable economic development. Hawkes and William

(1993) proposed the idea that, although the tourism industry has been thriving briskly

lately, there is no standard definition of nature tourism. It can be explained in various

ways, yet the crucial divergence is between mass tourism and nature tourism. The notion

of sustainable tourism covers a challenge to develop the world’s tourism capacity and the

quality of its yields without adversely influencing the surroundings that keep up and

nurture them. Thanks to the meaning of the sustainable tourism of Lane, Butler (1990)

and Wheeler (1992), sustainable tourism has considered a host of entries such as

alternative tourism, responsible tourism, green tourism, or progressive tourism. Garrod

and Fyall (1998) found that sustainable tourism is derived from the more common notion

of sustainable development. The formal meaning is a given term employed to represent

the application of the sustainable development to the defined content of tourism. Croall

28

(1995) also encouraged sustainable tourism in the aspect that tourism should accomplish

the sustainable development independently of other activities and procedures are in

conflict with the concept of nature. In addition, Pigram (1990) stated that sustainable

tourism stretches through alternative tourism, although it is quite obvious that most

patterns of tourism can possibly be appropriate to the sustainable development aspect, if

dealt with in a proper method within suitable settings. According to Valentine’s (1992)

explanation, nature tourism plus ecotourism was more exclusive, and covered merely

those activities which rely on natural areas instead of those that are solely increased by

natural areas.

Rural areas

Swarbrooke (1999) noted that rural bodies possess an uncommon place in the

culture of the country and the milieu of its people and rurality is the seed that civilization

has grown. Thanks to the discovery of Keane and Van der Straaten (1992), rural areas

have been confronting increasing pressures from recreation and tourist development.

Coccossis (1996) also agreed that the views and problems of rural areas have become

initial issues from social, economic and environmental prospects. Notwithstanding

divergent geographical characteristics, several of the rural areas encounter problems of

the population decrease. Even if it is a short-term attitude, demographic and economic

decrease may become profitable to the environment, alleviating the stresses on resources

at a local level. All in all, this might bring about environmental destruction.

Environmental issues in rural areas are not always ascribed to abandon and ignorance.

Intense problems of environmental degradation are also put down to excessive utilization

29

of resources and are empty of resource management. Anyway, tourism has essential

advantageous consequences as well on environmental concerns in certain remote areas,

especially when it supports environmental conservation and improvement. Some

categories of tourism, such as eco-tourism and rural tourism, have brought problems to

the rural areas and brought the attention of society. Tourism has engendered impacts,

directly or indirectly, on better management of environmental resources. However,

according to Swarbrooke’s (1999) comments, wherever endeavors are produced to

develop sustainable patterns of rural tourism which conversely urges sustainable rural

development, the breakthrough will be consumer-oriented. Currently, several nations are

vigorously attempting to draw tourists for the social or economic benefits they can

produce.

Tourism to protected areas

Boo (1990) found that tourism to protected areas of breathtaking natural scenery,

uncommon ecological interest, and pristine untouched areas has dramatically increased in

the past twenty years. Boo’s (1990) view supports Keller’s (1987) statement that an area

that can keep up the manipulation of the tourism decision-making, and confine evolution

of growth in tune with the resources, investment, manpower, and culture from within has

to achieve the economical, social and ecological advantages. Ceballos-Lascurain (1987)

explained ecotourism as any traveling to rather undisturbed or unspoiled natural areas

with the given purpose of learning, perceiving, and relishing the views. Moreover, wild

flora and fauna, including any existing cultural demonstrations, are observed in these

areas. This type of tourism varies from a short walk through a forest to surveys and

30

studies of particular natural attributes in remote areas. It also has rapidly altered from an

avocation for a select few to an activity followed by many. People affiliated with the

travel industry are observing an increasing need for nature tours and other kinds of

extraordinary trips to off-beat destinations, which is now a part of international and

national tourism. National parks, reserves, and wildlife refuges in some countries are

attracting growing tourist attention for education and recreation. Yet, the effects of nature

tourism on the zone’s protected areas or the economic potential of that specific market

are widely reported. Those analyses will be vital to park managers, government officials,

and tour operators who look to capitalize on their potential without bringing about any

danger to the special characteristics of natural areas.

With 12.6% of Thailand’s territory reserved as protected areas, Thailand has the

second highest proportion of protected land within Asia, after Bhutan (World Resources

Institute, 1994). McNeely and Dobias (1991) noted that there are plans to significantly

enlarge this percentage through the establishment of additional parks. Most park visitors

are Thai people, who are usually young persons traveling in large groups during summer

vacation or long weekends (Chudintra, 1993). Widener (1996) found, however, that only

a few of the more approachable parks have the location or available infrastructure

necessary to draw substantial numbers of visitors.

31

Ecotourism

Based upon Nicoara’s statement (1992), nature-based tourism, currently called

ecotourism, was launched in the 1980s and has become one of the fastest growing

segments of the world tourist industry. Swarbrooke (1999) advanced the idea that the

term ecotourism is combined with other terms like soft tourism, alternative tourism,

responsible tourism and nature tourism. Ross and Wall (1999) believed that ecotourism is

consistently deemed to be beyond tourism to natural areas. The World Conservation

Union’s Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (1991) suggested that

ecotourism is environmentally answerable travel and travel to untouched natural areas.

The travelers can relish and admire nature including any other cultural exhibits that

increase conservation. This sort of tourism has scant visitor impact, and offers the

profitable active socio-economic participation of local residents. Additionally, in

Scheyvens’ (1999) point of view, ecotourism is the activity that can relate to both cultural

and environmental tourism. It yields benefits to the local residents who are a critical part

of the activity. It resembles Pedersen’s (1991) outlook that at the same time ecotourism

offers a pleasant experience in nature, the basic functions of ecotourism are protecting

natural resources, generating income, educating local participants and establishing

capacity. Each of these functions is necessary to the entire success of ecotourism.

Furthermore, they can bring about the attainment of more particular goals, which are

difficult to separate since failure to overcome one purpose may affect the breakthrough or

capacity to fulfill others. If all of the purposes are in accordance, then ecotourism will

become a suitable support to the solution of a storm of debates linked to the stresses

between resource consumption and resource conservation. Plus, the accepted ecotourism

32

can be a sustainable tourism benefiting from natural resources which can go on to be

pleasing and utilized for generations to come. Similar to Whelan’s (1991) concept,

ecotourism can be a sustainable and slightly unsophisticated alternative. It offers

employment and revenue to local communities and needed foreign currency to federal

governments, thus enabling the continuing existence of the natural resources, which are

based on being protected. Fennell (1999) noted that ecotourism is a sustainable form of

natural resource-based tourism that highlights primarily experiencing and learning about

nature, and which is ethically managed to be low-effect, non-consumptive, and locally

oriented in control, benefits and scale. It typically takes place in natural boundaries, and

should make a major contribution to conservation or preservation in those locations.

Wallace and Pierce (1996), suggest that true ecotourism can be addressed in the

following six principles.

1. Ecotourism entails a type of use that minimizes

negative impacts to the environment and to local

people.

2. Ecotourism increases the awareness and

understading of an area’s natural and cultural

systems and the subsequent involvement of visitors

in issues affecting those systems.

3. Ecotourism contributes to the conservation and

management of legally protected and other natural

areas.

33

4. Ecotourism maximizes the early and long-term

participation of local people in the decision-making

process that determines the kind and amount of

tourism that should occur.

5. Ecotourism directs economic and other benefits to

local people that complement rather than

overwhelm or replace traditional practices (farming,

fishing, social systems, etc.)

6. Ecotourism provides special opportunities for local

people and nature tourism employees to utilize and

visit natural areas and learn more about the wonders

that other visitors come to see. (pp. 843-873)

The tourist and the ecotourist

Swarbrooke (1999) found that tourists in the sustainable tourism context are the

problem makers in environmental, economic and social aspects when conducting their

activities. At times, it seems the tourist is an invader instead of a greeted guest. Through

Whelan’s (1991) viewpoint, the ecotourists will be a key player in the success or failure

of ecotourism. They can do more than learn from the experience and participate. Ecotour

operators are supposed to implant a conservation conscience for ecologically fragile

travel in their customers, if they are to carry on directing visitors to sensitive landscapes.

Ecotour operators and conservation organizations both in the destination country and in

the home country need to function diligently to get the ecotourists effectively to take part

34

in sustainable development. Ecotourists can turn out to be a potential group of members

with leisure time and funds to spend on sustainable development attempts. This is

pertinent to Ziffer’s (1989) discovery that most nature tourism locations stress natural

attractions and a seclusion that the travelers do not possess at home. Four fundamental

genres of tourists questing for nature are as follows:

Hard-Core Nature Tourists: Scientific researchers or members of tourist group specifically designed for education, removal of litter, or similar purposes. Dedicated Nature Tourists: People who take trips specifically to see protected areas and who want to understand local natural and cultural history. Mainstream Nature Tourism: People who primarily take an unusual trip. Casual Nature Tourists: People who partake of nature incidentally as part of a broader trip

(Ziffer, 1989, p. 3)

Boo (1990) highlighted that nature tourists are normally more acknowledging of

guidelines varying from their homes than are other classes of tourists. Nature tourists do

not anticipate lodging accommodations, food, or nightlife that respond to the yardsticks

of comfort or luxury held by other groups of tourists. Cater’s (1994) notion supports

Boo’s (1990) view that the tourists need to be appropriately told about the attributes of

their destination and how to conduct themselves to lower the unwanted effects during

their stay. This is the primary responsibility of the tourism industry. Swarbrooke (1999)

believed that sustainable tourism could not be accomplished by regulation or by

educating tourists. It is much better to take part in developing patterns of tourism, which

provide tourists pleasant perceptions and mirror tendencies in social appraisal and

consumer values while enhancing the profits and lessening the cost of tourism.

35

According to the discovery of Widener (1996) about the domestic participation in

the nature-based tourism aspect, 60% of the 50 million domestic tourism trips taken each

year in Thailand are nature based. It can also be assumed that whatever the level of

nature-based participation, not all would qualify as ecotourism. He added that at least 40

million of the trips happen outside protected areas, where the formal opportunities for

ecotourism are extremely limited at present. Furthermore, ecotourism alludes to methods

of recreational behavior among Thais and other Southeast Asians when referring to

nature and /or protected areas, visits are prone to be a holiday experience involving large

groups on public holidays or vacations, and concentrated on pleasure-based recreation by

the middle class people. This was brought to Cochrane’s (1993) attention that Thailand is

probably situated about halfway between Costa Rica and Kenya, if considered in western

cultures.

Host country governments

Swarbrooke notes (1999) that governments have been likely to lead the

development of tourism in developing countries. They are often performing with good

faith, but their intervention has had a large number of unfavorable effects. The

International Resources Group (1992) believed that effective development and marketing

of ecotourism is dependent on a deluge of proper actions by federal governments in

policy, resource management and finance. The success of a government’s ecotourism

plans relies on its ability to actively balance its development in terms of national,

industrial and local needs, interests, and well-being. It should not have to merely allow

development to compromise environmental, social and economic sustainability. A

36

government must possess an astute knowledge of what type of development is suitable

for its social systems, institutions and communities, and plan appropriately. The role of

federal government in backing ecotourism has numerous divergent parts which are pretty

perplexing, ranging widely between countries in many areas of government participation,

policy, resource administration, tourism promotion and infrastructure development. In

addition to the small scale, Ryel and Grasse (1991) noted that government requires

persuasion at the national level that ecotourism will generate a dramatic sum of foreign

exchanges, so they can have financial assistance to provide technical support for the

protection of parks and reserves.

Host communities and sustainable tourism

Murphy (1985); Jamal and Getz (1995) ascertained that the use of the term

community in tourism research has thrived considerably over the past twenty years.

Thanks to the evolution of tourism products, the community can bring these cultural

resources as a tourism commodity. Regardless of this growth, not many researchers have

devoted much attention to defining community. Researchers constantly refer to an

assemblage of people dwelling in the same location. Some include a perception of

ecosystem or habitat in their explanation. Sociologist Bernard (1973) explained the

differences between the communities that are an accumulation of people at a specific site.

What’s more, community can be typified by social interplay, intimacy, moral actions,

relationship and perpetuation through time. Besides, Stoddard (1993) found that the

interdependence concept of community needs, social organization rooted in sharing

prizes and beliefs by the community members, directed the many-faceted relations

37

between individuals and developed the way in which groups of people give each other

assistance and advantages. Through Liu (1994); Ceballos-Lascurain’s (1996) perspective,

certain authors have recommended that the entry community-based ecotourism business

should be used to classify those judgments which are ecologically sensitive. Those

judgments are also designed to make sure that local community members have a large

amount of influence over the activities occurring, and a significant allocation of the

benefits raised by them. Regarding Cater’s (1993) comprehension, a community-based

access to ecotourism realizes the need to enhance both the quality of life of local

residents and the conservation of resources. A practical means to discern answerable

community-based ecotourism is to access it from a development viewpoint, which

investigates social, environmental and economic targets, and questions how ecotourism

can respond to the needs of the host population by upgrading living norms both in the

short and long term. Drake (1991) endorsed the idea that local involvement is an

imperative element of sustainable development. Generally, meeting the needs of present

and future generations while protecting the natural resource base, and ecotourism

particularly, is vital. Local communities can take part in ecotourism projects in the

planning and implementation phases. Furthermore, they can allocate the benefits.

Involvement in the planning stage covers major responsibility while demonstrating

problems, formulating options, planning activities, and apportioning resources.

Participation in the actual operation process may include actions such as managing and

operating a program. The local community will acquire benefits. They are economic,

social, political, cultural, and/or other benefits from the plan either personally or

reciprocally. Cole (1997) stated, that particularly in virtual nature-based tourism, the role

38

of the host has to be placed neutral to sustainable tourism development. The aim is to

provide them this central role because it is critical to have an obvious comprehension of

their culture, including internal politics, before the development can be scrutinized.

According to Harper’s (1997) notion, in order to affect drift in the local communities, it is

necessary to completely comprehend its social combination, but this retards the process.

It is deemed that the best way to change is to point out the local leaders in the

community, then seek them out, befriend them and cooperate with them. Consequently,

the change phase is accelerated by these local influences instead of being imposed from

outside.

Local attitudes

Owing to Giongo, Nizeye and Wallace’s (1994) perception, “Not only can visitor

behavior and numbers cause conflict among themselves, they also have the potential to

conflict with local people neighboring the resources” (p. 94). Both management staffs

and visitor manners can raise the effects on local residents unfavorably or positively. It is

significant that the endorsement of local residents be requested if the protected areas and

visitor management programs have to achieve long-term success. Acquiring the opinions

of local residents can be instrumental in designing practical public relations and visitor

management programs.

39

Economic impacts

Scheyvens (1999) provided a practical notion that when thinking whether or not a

community has been given economic freedom by an ecotourism business, it is necessary

to think about opportunities, which have been derived from both casual and formal sector

employment and business opportunities. Meanwhile, some economic gains are from time

to time gained by a community. Problems may occur if these are spasmodic and cannot

supply a constant, foolproof income. Besides, concerns may derive over parity in the

scattering of economic profits. It is hard and not certain to effectively accept that all

community members possess equal importance and the same rights including

opportunities in life with mutual targets. This brings to the identical comprehension of

Wilkinson and Pratiwi (1995), that to identify the sustainability of an ecotourism

business, the allotment of economic benefits from this genre of tourism is only as

pressing as the exact quantity of benefits a community may come by.

Environmental impacts

With Cater’s (1994) explanation, people have become increasingly aware of the

unfavorable socio-cultural and environmental effects of unlimited mass tourism. The

merging of the term ‘eco’ implies that ecotourism should be an environmentally

accountable form of tourism. Actually, if it does not act according to this requirement,

then the natural attractions will experience degradation so that the tourists will no longer

visit. The level of those ecotourism activities indirectly states that comparatively fewer

tourists will arrive. In consequence, the supporting facilities can be kept up to a minimum

and will be less intrusive. It is important to realize that any human activity relying on the

40

use of a large amount of ecological resources like ecotourism cannot be sustained

continually if the consequential doctrine does not give any support to its organization.

Ecotourism, with its meanings of good environmental management and ensuing

supporting funding of environment, should provide a viable economic choice to

utilization of the environment. Nevertheless, Keane and Van der Straaten (1992)

emphasized that the effect on the natural ecology is consequential as graphically observed

in natural parks in the Alpine region. Present development in distant areas to provide

domestic and international tourism presents a future which will damage rural ecosystems

in two ways. It is through increasing stress for construction or through urging traditional

rural activities and practices. Those will cause the management of natural resources to be

neglected. Coccossis (1996) agreed that environmental issues in rural areas are not

always caused by abandonment and ignorance. Harsh problems of environmental

degradation are also put down to over utilization of resources integrated with the lack of

resource management.

Social impacts

Thanks to Mansperger’s (1993) understanding, social empowerment means that a

community’s sense of unity has been proved or made more effective by an activity like

ecotourism. Social empowerment may take place when the tourists’ activities bring about

crime, begging, discovery of tourist congestion, or prostitution forcing local residents to

move from their from original habitats and loss of genuine sense of place. Coccossis

(1996) contended that the effects of tourism might also be favorable. Because of

providing lodging accommodation for the arrival of a large number of tourists and

41

visitors, local residents have the advantage of access to upgraded infrastructure, facilities

and services such as transport, wastewater management and so on thus improving

environmental quality. Also, thanks to the to better life and the increased prosperity to

those local residents, local values and attitudes can be altered. Therefore, the local

communities can become more ecologically circumspect and place greater importance on

local resources and their cultural inheritance.

Socio-cultural impacts

Weaver (1998) found that within most destinations, the degree to which tourisms’

negative socio-cultural results depends on several conditions, including paramount

divergence in monetary status between tourists and the host community, large cultural

and racial differences between tourists and the host society, strong desires of tourists to

stick to their own cultural norms. In the mean time, brisk growth of the tourism industry

at the destination, judgment and involvement in material focused on tourists, high number

of tourists depending on local population, more noticeable tourism beyond the destination

economy, and external manipulation over a principal segment of the tourism industry can

influence socio-cultural concerns. Through Weaver’s (1998) findings, the socio-cultural

costs take place as a consequence of the economic costs, even certain reporters from the

support group have suggested that the socio-cultural impact be anticipated as the

continual cost of the economic benefits. In Erisman’s (1983) conception, the true socio-

cultural costs generated by the stated variables may be categorized into many

interblended genres based on an alteration of research. Cole (1997) found that the vitality

of anthropologists for the development of sustainable tourism in the developing nations

42

should not be overlooked. Clearly, in particular, in nature-based tourism, the role of the

hosts must be center to the sustainable tourism development procedure. To provide them

this central role, it is critical to have a clear comprehension of their culture.

Carrying capacity

The International Resources Group (1992) noted that the idea of carrying capacity

was developed by ecologists and resource managers to portray the number of healthy

creatures on a piece of land that could subsist without any degradation or spoilage in the

ecosystem. It contends the statement of Lime and Stankey (1971) that few ideas in

recreation management are discussed as greatly or as loudly as carrying capacity. The

entry is an example of what most people think. Everyone supports managing our

recreation resources within their carrying capacity. Yet, “when you get to the exact how

many, what type, when, for whom, the conversation is disrupted” (p. 182). Daily and

Ehrlich (1992) found that the entry is taken from wildlife ecology, with a somewhat

correct use. The peak population size shows that a specific kind can be supported in an

area without cutting down its capability of reciprocating the same kind in the future. In

Wight’s (1998) findings, the carrying capacity has been employed in land use planning

and growth management and other facets of human activity. Planners have enlarged the

meaning of carrying capacity with a host of variables discovered in manmade systems.

According to Shelby and Heberlein’s (1984) notion, “the carrying capacity has been

broken down into ecological capacity or ecosystem parameters, physical capacity or

space parameters, facility capacity or development parameters, and social capacity or

experience parameters” (p. 78). According to Whelan’s (1991) point of view, the very act

43

of tourism may endanger the survival of protected areas. All protected areas have

confined ecological and aesthetic carrying capacities. The ecological carrying capacity is

approached when the number of visitors and their attributes of exploitation begin to affect

the wildlife and spoil the ecosystem, like disturbing mating habits and rubbing soil away.

The aesthetic carrying capacity is accessed when tourists confront and experience other

throngs of tourists, or face the effects of other visitors such as lack of noticeable wildlife,

trash, erosion, cutting down the trees, so that their admiration of the landscape is

diminished.

Tourism and sustainable development

Together with Milne’s (1998) finding, the previous endeavors to establish a

theory of tourism’s role in the development phase have diminished to make the

environmental aspect less important. That is the center of sustainable development.

Combined with Butler’s (1980) understanding, if one visualizes product life span-based

approaches, the insights of an obviously political economy structure (Britton, 1982 and

1991) or the swift connecting frameworks of what Teague (1990) refers to as the new

political economy (Iaonnides 1995; Williams and Shaw, 1995), one tries to seek the in-

depth intention which defines the effect of tourism on the state of the natural ecology and

local people’s more extensive quality of life. Butler (1992) contended, ecotourism and

alternative tourism radically represent the diminished purpose of the immediate plans and

will finally result in a large-scale, adhering unsustainable development. Coupled with

Brandon (1996) and Ceballos-Lascurain’s (1996) additional information, quite a little

consideration on sustainable tourism has tried to distinguish more sustainable activities

44

like ecotourism, alternative or appropriate tourism from unsustainable differences of the

industry. Through De Kadt’s (1992) statement, the policy planners had better not simply

classify between alternative tourism, which generally needs to respond to the high criteria

of social and environmental effects, and tourism, the unfavorable impacts of which may

be allowed to carry on.

Sustainability planning

Ward (1999) found that the target of sustainable tourism development calls for

demonstrating an obvious relationship between tourism and the doctrines of sustainable

development as shown in the Brundtland report and other renowned texts on the matter

relating to the combination of two existing formerly independent areas of environment

and development. The keynote aims to improve the quality of life, in particular, of the

most destitute part of society through preserving the environmental and cultural unity of

the globe’s human and natural resources. Lindberg (1991) identified that the possible

advantages of nature tourism will be taken and maintained merely with sufficient

planning and joining together. Lindberg also added that a national nature tourism board

would logically meet with representatives from ministries of planning, finance, and parks

and tourism, or others with their same functions. It will also include delegates of the

private tourism industry, influenced local communities, the national airline, private

conservation organizations and others. It will be accountable for elaborating the country’s

targets and ability in connection with nature tourism. According to the International

Resources Group’s (1992) conception, planners and developers of potential ecotourism

destinations are required to confer with the tour operators, hotel people, airline staff and

so on. The entire range of performers in the travel industry can also play an important

45

part. There are not appropriate accessibility studies or business administration in quite a

few developing ecotourism locations. In addition to providing a worthwhile outlook on

demand and competition, travel industry representatives could identify the reciprocal

attempts that the industry would underwrite as soon as a destination is found.

Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing tourism and recreation

in the destination

In Wight’s (1998) opinion, tourism is an improving experience for the visitor. It

can be advantageous and beneficial, and brings about employment, income and other

profits for host communities. But, if improperly planned or conducted, it can turn into a

difficult situation for the visitor, the landscape and the host community. Anyhow, with

Gunn’s (1994) observation, while some rubbing away and contamination of resources is

inevitable by a large number of visitors, most environmental spoilage is ascribed to the

shortage of plans, policies, and reforms to prepare for any economic growth. It is not

tourism’s fault that environmental degradation resulted from wrong decisions instead of

true visitor effects. Consequently, the relationship between tourism and the entire

environment is significant. If the natural ecology or the culture is marred, or if the

adverse effect of tourism becomes worse, then we lack a positive force stimulating local

people to sustain and better the environment.

46

How to manage the social, environmental and cultural impacts of sustainable

ecotourism

According to Dredge and Moore (1992), tourism is not an essential element in the

planning phase regardless of its obvious economic importance for many in given areas. It

is relevant to Inskeep’s (1991) statement that much of existing research directly refers to

tourism as an activity that is planned and may be the concentration of planning in various

contexts. The fact is that it is not a visible activity delivered within the public planning

frameworks existing in many nations. It is accorded with Heeley’s (1981) notion that the

attainment of planning for tourism is likely to rest on the degree to which suitable

planning and management functions can lead and examine carefully its development and

effects (as cited in Page and Thorn, 1998). The International Union for the Conservation

of Nature and Natural Resources (1987) explained that the most important operation for

managing change is by controlling the number of visitors. Simultaneously, the planners

can also exert remedial tactics. Any strategy will be widely site-specific, but certain

generalizations can be stated. Ecological deterioration put down to the tourist

infrastructure can be lowered if facilities are carefully placed, and appropriate treatment

functions are employed.

Thailand and sustainable ecotourism

Thailand’s sustainable ecotourism, which is dependent on ecology, environment

and host communities, is now being widely promoted by communities and the

government. The Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang National Park, Thailand are

appropriate places to investigate the roles that the sustainable ecotourism can perform in

47

visitors’ rewarding experiences, environmental conservation and the residents’ local

culture and way of life.

The Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat

Nakhon Si Thammarat, meaning grand city of the just king, is an historic city in

southern Thailand. The city is 780 kilometers by car from the capital city, Bangkok, and

832 kilometers by train. The province has a land area of 9,942 square kilometers. The

population of the city in 2000 is approximately 1,500,000. It constitutes 21 Amphoe

(districts) and two King Amphoe (sub-districts) as ensuing:

1. Amphoe Muang Nakhon 12. Amphoe Hua Sai

2. Amphoe Pak Pha Nang 13. Amphoe Lan Saka

3. Amphoe Chian Yai 14. Amphoe Thung Yai

4. Amphoe Ron Phibun 15. Amphoe Phi Pun

5. Amphoe Cha Uat 16. Amphoe Na Bon

6. Amphoe Thung Song 17. Amphoe Phrom Kiri

7. Amphoe Tha Sala 18. Amphoe Kha Nom

8. Amphoe Cha Wang 19. Amphoe Bang Khan

9. Amphoe Si Chon 20. Amphoe Tham Phannara

10. Amphoe Chulaphon 21. Amphoe Chaloem Phra Kiat

11. Amphoe Phar Phrom

King Amphoe Chang Klang

King Amphoe Nop Phitam

48

Map 2. Southern Thailand and Nakhon Si Thammarat Province

Source: Hartmut Volk’s Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

Location

North Border: Surat Thani Province and the Gulf of Thailand

South Border: Phatthalung and Songkhla Provinces

East Border: the Gulf of Thailand

West Border: Trang and Krabi Provinces

49

Climate

Because of the province’s location, which is adjacent to the equatorial line, and

set between the Andaman Seas of the Indian Ocean in the west and the Gulf of Thailand

in the east, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province is influenced by those seas throughout the

year. Therefore, only two seasons of dry and rainy season can be found in this area.

Since the Khao Luang Mountain divides this area into eastern and western parts, the

eastern part is greatly influenced by the Northeast monsoon from the Gulf of Thailand.

Heavy rainfalls result from October to January. The average annual rainfall in this region

for the past 30 years is 2,382.4 millimeters. There are approximately 172 rainy days per

year. The heaviest rainfall often takes place in November and December. Conversely, the

western part of the city is impacted by the Southwest monsoons from the Indian Ocean

and the Andaman Sea. It results in heavy rainfalls in this area from May to September.

50

Map 3. Average annual rainfalls of Thailand Source: Hartmut Volk’s Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

The average temperatures of the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat are between 22.8-

31.1 C or 74-88 F and the annual average temperatures are around 27.4 C or 82 F. There

are insignificant temperature differences in each month (The National Park Bureau,

1991).

51

Access to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat, the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park

Travel to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat or other provinces in the south is normally launched

in the transportation hub of Bangkok. Land and air transportation is daily served by both public and private

firms.

Car - Take Highway No. 4 on the Bangkok-Prachuap Khiri Khan-Chumphon route and then get

through Highway No. 41 to Surat Thani-Amphoe Thung Song until reaching Nakhon Si Thammarat

Province or Amphoe Phun Phin of Surat Thani Province. Then, take Highway No. 401 along the coastline

to Nakhon Si Thammarat.

Train - Rapid and express trains are in service from Bangkok Railway Station to Na Khon Si

Thammarat. It takes some 14 hours from Bangkok to get to the city and requires a reservation.

Bus - Regular and air-conditioned buses are available at the Southern Bus Terminal on Borom

Ratchachonani Road. It normally takes up to 12 hours by this mode.

Air – Only domestic flights from Bangkok to Nakhon Si Thammarat are daily served by the Thai

Airways International Public Co., Ltd. (THAI). One single flight takes around one hour and 15 minutes

from Bangkok to the city.

The Khao Luang National Park The Khao Luang Summit The City of Nakhon Si Thammarat

The Village of Khiriwong

The park office at Karom Unit

20 kms from the city to the Village of Khiriwong and 24 kms to the Khao Luang National Park

52

Amphoe Lan Saka’s attractions and places of interest

Map 4. The Khao Luang National Park and the area of the Village of Khiriwong.

Source: Harmut Volk’s Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

53

The Khao Luang National Park

The landscape and terrain of Nakhon Si Thammarat Province comprise a

mountainous area in central part of the city. In these areas, on the ground of dense

rainforests, are 15 canals and rivers flowing from the elevations. The 597 square

kilometer park consists of Amphoe Muang Nakhon, Amphoe Phi Pun, Amphoe Phrom

Khiri, Amphoe Lan Saka, Amphoe Cha Wang and King Amphoe Nop Phitam. The Khao

Luang National Park became a national park in 1974. The park has an extensive

mountain range with the Khao Luang summit, which is the highest peak in Thailand’s

southern region, at 1,835 meters above the sea level. The park’s cloud forest is a source

of rare tropical plants and animals. Nature trails and paths lead visitors to the native

environment, various types of wildlife, endangered animals and plant species. Some of

them can be ascertained and seen only in this park. The park’s charm and natural

atmosphere help local residents and visitors realize the importance of natural resources,

and with its unparalleled visitor service network have all mixed to assist the park to win

the 1998 Thailand Tourism Award in the natural destination genre.

Annual Visits 1992-1999

Figure 1. Number of visitors to the Khao Luang National Park

301,920 288,058

629,537

968,011

537,359

234,389

0 200,000 400,000 600,000

800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

230,330 265,930

Source: Department of Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture (2000)

54

Figure 1, it explains that park visitors increased during 1996-1997 because of the

domestic tourism campaigns by the Thai Government to stabilize the monetary status

affected by the Asian economic recession.

The central Khao Luang National Park is home to abundant indigenous wildlife.

Its landscape comprises complex mountainous areas, which obstruct human approach.

Mammals such as tapirs, serows, boars, gibbons, husks, bears, native birds, reptiles and

rainforest insects can be found around the streams in the dense forest areas.

The Karom Waterfall

The Karom Waterfall is nine kilometers from the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat.

Take Highway No. 4016 and then get on Highway No. 4015 to the left for 20 kilometers.

The waterfall originates in the Nakhon Si Thammarat mountain range and falls down 19

levels. From each level of the waterfall, visitors can enjoy the natural scenery. Swimming

is not allowed on some levels.

The Village of Khiriwong

The Khiriwong Village consists of four main communities of Khiriwong, Khiri

Thong, Khun Khiri, Khiri Tham and of Wat Samor community. Each community is

governed by its own community leader. In 2000, there are 678 households and 2,864

people in the village (Table 1).

55

Table 1

Demographic data of the Khiriwong Village

Communities in the Village of Khiriwong

Population Male Female

Khiriwong (Moo 5) 822 396 426 Khiri Thong (Moo 8) 303 153 150 Khun Khiri (Moo 9) 819 412 407 Khiri Tham (Moo 10) 920 445 475 Wat Samor (Moo 4) N/A N/A N/A

Total 2,864 1,406 1,458 Source: The Health Clinic in the Village of Khiriwong, 2000.

Map 5. The Khiriwong Village Source: Harmut Volk’s Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

56

Table 2

The Khiriwong Village’s public utility and local infrastructure

Public utility and local infrastructure Yes Number No Fresh market 2 Village hospital Village health clinic 1 Temple with graveyard 2 Pre-elementary school 1 Elementary or grade school 1 Junior high school 1 Senior high school College or university Authorized post office 1 Tap water Commercial bank Police station Fire brigade

Standard toilets are available in all of the residences. Waste management by the

village’s administration, including garbage collection, has been in service for the

villagers since September 2000, yet, refuse or drainage from households is still

substandard. Because of the village’s climate and landscape, adequate rainwater can

dilute and transport those substances through the sandy soil. The researcher discovered

that the villagers well realize their advantageous location, so any design for the drainage

is not necessary at the present time.

The Village of Khiriwong is a community with a long history, located at the

mountain foot of the Khao Luang National Park in Tambon Kamlon. Most villagers’

family relationships to one another are like an endless family tree. Their living is

dependent on fruit cultivation and homemade products. Those agricultural products

common to the area included Betel Nuts (Areca catechu Linn. Palmae), Durians (Durio

zibethinus Linn. Bombacaceae), Mangosteens (Garcinia mangostana Linn. Guttiferae),

57

Sato (Parkia speciosa Hassk. Mimosaceae), Longsat and Longkong (Lansium

domesticum Hutchinson. Meliaceae), Luk Niang (Archidendron jiringa Nielsen. =

Phithecolobium lobatum Benth. = Phithecellobium jiringa Plain. = Abarema jiringa

Kosterm. Mimosaceae), Champada (Artocarpus integer Merr. = Artocarpus champeden

Lour.), Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk.) – Moraceae, Rambutan (Nephelium

lappaceum Linn. Sapindaceae).

Figure 2. Betel Nuts (Areca catechu Linn. Palmae)

Figure 3. Durians (Durio zibethinus Linn. Bombacaceae)

Figure 4. Mangosteens (Garcinia mangostana Linn. Guttiferae)

58

Figure 5. Sato (Parkia speciosa Hassk. Mimosaceae)

Figure 6. Langsat and Longkong (Lansium domesticum Hutchinson. Meliaceae)

Figure 7. Luk Niang (Archidendron jiringa Nielsen. = Phithecolobium lobatum Benth. = Phithecellobium jiringa Plain. = Abarema jiringa Kosterm. Mimosaceae)

Figure 8. Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lamk.) – Moraceae

59

Figure 9. Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum Linn. Sapindaceae)

Source: Figure 2-9, Harmut Volk’s Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

In 1988, the village was mostly destroyed by floods and landslides. Twelve

villagers died in the catastrophe. The Village of Khiriwong has recovered and is now

recognized as an eco-tourism management community in Thailand. The village was

awarded the 1998 Thailand Tourism Award in the City and Community Genre.

Furthermore, the village is renowned for its balanced man-land relationship. Local

residents have recently developed and adapted tourism services to this balance. The

village’s activities include trekking tours, tourist guiding and home-stay programs,

operated by the Ecotourism Group members in the village. Domestic and international

visitors are captivated all year-round by the traditional way of life and fruit cultivation

opportunities. The village is also a gateway and starting point for trekking up the Khao

Luang summit. Local transportation to the village is daily provided at the Talad Yao in

the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat during 0700 am to 400 pm. Driving by following the

signs to the village and the park is convenient as well.

The following images depict the traditional agro-forests. Rather than deforestation

for arable areas, the villagers grow various kinds of fruit trees among other wild plants

and the original forests. Certain fruit trees like durians, mangosteens, satos, betel nuts,

rambutans and salacca grow well. Levels of height of some plants always affect others

(Figure 10). The traditional agro-forests in the Village of Khiriwong become one of the

60

most attractive tourist spots during January-March and July-September each year. The

villagers lead their visitors to view their agricultural products and explain how they

subsist on cultivating fruits. Moreover, the visitors will be asked to take part in fruit

harvesting activities during their stay in the village as well.

Figure 10. An example of Agro-forests in the Village of Khiriwong Source: Hartmut Volk’ Forest Gardens in the south of Thailand (1993)

The Khao Luang Summit

The Khao Luang summit with the height of 1,835meters offers a challenging

trekking tourism activity. Visitors can select this activity and enjoy the scenery along the

way to the summit. Tourists interested in exploring the summit are required to take two

nights and three days including the trekking time. Members of the village Ecotourism

Club serve as visitors’ representatives to apply for permission from the Khao Luang

National Park authorities to visit the park. The club also provides tourist guides, meals,

and other services.

61

The Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang National Park tourism were

established with these following objectives:

1. to emphasize the great value of natural resource conservation and the

village’s way of life;

2. to involve local residents in the village and the park tourism;

3. to better understand and respect the environment, traditional culture of

the host community; and

4. to distribute equal opportunities and/or benefits to residents of the host

community.

62

Characteristics of the tourism season in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park include the following (Table 3):

Table 3

Tourism activities in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park

Month

Ideal to explore the Khao Luang Peak and the Khao Luang National Park

Ideal to visit and learn the Village of Khiriwong’s way of life and traditional culture

Expedient to explore the Khao Luang Peak and experience the Khiriwong Village’s folklore

January February March April May June July

August September

October November December

Source: Tourism Manual, the Ecotourism Club (1998)

Legend: = Nice season for traveling to visit the Khao Luang National Park.

= Tourism and fruit harvesting season in the Village of Khiriwong.

= Best season for visiting the Khao Luang National Park and the

Village of Khiriwong and concurrently, the fruit harvesting rite.

= Monsoon season and changeable climate.

= No fruit and harvesting activity in the Village of Khiriwong.

63

Table 4

The village tourism and cost list

Expense List Cost

1. Homestay/per person/night 100 Baht US$ 2.70

2. Gardenstay/per person/night (A small house in the garden)

200 Baht US$ 5.30

3. A meal/per person 60 Baht US$ 1.60

4. Guide, porter service to the Khao Luang Peak/per person/day

300 Baht US$ 7.90

5. Contact and service fee 500 Baht US$ 13.20

6. Guide for touring in the Village of Khiriwong/per person/1time

150 Baht US$ 4.0

7. The Ecotourism Club’s Maintenance fee/per person/1time

100 Baht US$ 2.70

8. Rental tent per night 50 Baht US$ 1.30

Note: US$ 1 equaled approximately 38.0 Baht during June-August 2000

These following package tours are provided to visitors of their preferences and selection.

Table 5

Tour program and cost list

Tour Programs Cost per 1 person

1. A 2 night 3 day study tour of the Khiriwong Village’s way of life

1,100 Baht US$ 29.00

2. A one night 2 day study tour of the Khiriwong Village’s way of life

850 Baht US$ 22.40

3. A one day study tour of the Village of the Khiriwong Village’s way of life

350 Baht US$ 9.30

4. A 2 night 3 day study tour of the Khao Luang Peak of the Khao Luang National Park

1,300 Baht US$ 34.20

5. A 3 night 4 day study tour of the Khiriwong Village’s way of life and the Khao Luang Peak of the Khao Luang National Park

1,700 Baht US$ 44.70

Source: Tourism Manual, the Ecotourism Club (1998)

64

Visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park are

required to make reservations at least three days in advance. Tourists and visitors must

understand the importance of the village’s traditions, do’s and don’ts, and follow the

village’s and park’s regulations before and while touring. Those rules include:

1. if interested in studying the village’s way of life, the Khao Luang

National Park, the visitor or tour group should contact the

Ecotourism Club directly;

2. visitors should respect the village’s traditional culture and the

park’s untouched surroundings; and

3. no arms, drugs allowed in the village and the park.

Additional tourism suggestions are:

1. the visitors’ groups to the Khao Luang Peak of the Khao Luang

National Park should between five and 10 people, with the preferred

number of 15 people, including porters and local guides;

2. reservations in advance for any tourism activity;

3. visitors are able to apply for admission to travel to the Khao Luang

National Park by direct contact with the park office;

4. it is prohibited to hunt wildlife or collect wild plants or litter, etc.;

and

5. visitors should obey local guides’ principles or instruction for safety.

65

Conclusions

Thailand is an appropriate location to examine the role that protected areas and

ecotourism can play in economic, social and environmental development, and in

contradictions that emerge in ecotourist destinations. During the past decade, Thailand

has aggressively followed the promotion of tourism as the centerpiece of its development

strategy. Tourism has become Thailand’s leading source of foreign income and well

known among culturalists and naturalists for its natural resources, biodiversity and

existing system of protected areas. Place (1998) found that ecotourism can provide an

alternative economic base, but it does not take place automatically, or without social and

environmental effects. If it is to be sustainable, local residents must be enabled to capture

a significant amount of the economic advantages produced by tourism. Community

participation is also important for identifying negative impacts on people who live in

areas undergoing ecotourism development. Consequently, this study will be useful for

those beneficiaries in the areas of the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National

Park, who are interacting with the visitors’ rewarding experiences, the environmental

conservation, and local residents in terms of way of life and cultural disruption.

66

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter highlighted a case study of the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park. The Khiriwong Village is a sustainable ecotourism community,

whose recent transformation disclosed many of the conflicting interests in the tourism-

based development phase. The village’s ecotourism-based economy also defined the

linkage between local, national and international levels, in general, that underlay

environmental connection and economic development. As the Khiriwong Village

demonstrated the potential of tourism to support local or regional development, it also

showed some of the dangers of this economic strategy. Place’s (1998) research noted that

tourism was a notoriously unstable economic activity and subject to booms and busts.

The Khiriwong Village’s experience exhibited how even remote rural areas were

impacted by outside events and trends, often the outcome of decisions made by visitors

and over which local residents had no control. Like other tourist destinations, the

Khiriwong Village was vulnerable to the uncontrollable and unexpected elements of

tourism, such as the degraded surroundings and natural catastrophes. This section

considered the question, who in the Khiriwong Village would benefit from tourism.

In the year 2000, the author spent two months from September 6th to November

6th on surveying and studying the local effects of tourism of the Khiriwong Village and

the Khao Luang National Park in southern Thailand. The Khiriwong Village was situated

in Lan Sa Ka District, Na Khon Si Thammarat Province.

67

The Village of Khiriwong is renowned for its natural wonders and the villagers’

way of life. The village is located in the upland foothills and surrounded by the

mountains of the Khao Luang National Park. Moreover, the immediate locale is also well

endowed with rainforests, white water streams, waterfalls and rapids. The village was

settled approximately two hundred years ago.

Because of the village’s upland location, most villagers had been subsisting by

cultivating fruit crops for their main income. Their predominant method of agriculture

was ecologically sound and naturally simple. They utilized this natural advantage to

establish and develop a new kind of village tourism consisting of trekking tourism with

local companions, home-staying and unique festivals. These activities could provide

tourists not only their fun, but also memorable experiences. The Khiriwong Village

founded a sustainable ecotourism resource center for visitors and it functioned as a

community hub, which assigned responsibilities to subgroups in the village. Besides the

subsistence on agriculture and gardening, the villagers had additional careers as local

guides introducing and bringing tourists to explore the Khao Luang National Park and

their own cultivating lands. Some provided visitors board and home-stay

accommodation. Some village members took part in the village’s career groups like the

Mad-Yom (Twisted and Dyed Fabric) Group, the Jak Saan (Handicraft) Group, the Food

Product Group, the Samoon Prai (Herb) Group, the Kha Nom (Dessert) Group and the

Om-Sap (Savings) group.

The Khiriwong Village has been named as the prototype of sustainable

ecotourism of Na Khon Si Thammarat Province (Tourism Authority of Thailand

Magazine, 1998). From the beginning, and in collaboration with the Tourism Authority

68

of Thailand, Na Khon Si Thammart Chamber of Commerce, experts in Ecology and

Kiriwong villagers from both government and academia, two extensive research

strategies were identified: the Village study and National Park study.

The Khiriwong Village and the Khao Luang National Park study

The research program was launched on September 6th, 2000. The emphasis was

placed on detailed studies of the Khiriwong Village, and the Khao Luang National Park

in Na Khon Si Thammarat Province. This was accomplished in recognition of:

(1) the great importance of traditional culture in the Khiriwong Village and the

need for the researcher to gain familiarity with the village life and culture as

expeditiously as possible;

(2) the importance of the village as a settlement in the local habitat; and

(3) the importance of village institutions to the village culture and, in

consequence, their potential significance for the implementation of sustainable

ecotourism development strategies.

Three major objectives of the village and national park study were to identify

1. whether the village’s and national park’s sustainable ecotourism provided

the visitors with rewarding experiences;

2. whether sustainable ecotourism in the village and national park supported

environmental conservation; and

3. whether sustainable ecotourism in the village and national park brought

benefits to the receiving community without also causing cultural

disruption.

69

Instrument

The ensuing primary types of information were collected in the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park:

To meet the objective of whether the village’s and national park’s sustainable

ecotourism provided the visitors with rewarding experiences, surveying visitors’

opinions and tourism activities provided for the visitors in the village were

identified.

(i) surveys of visitors;

Through the period of a two month’s stay and participating with local

residents, domestic tourists and international visitors were targeted for the

information whether or not their trips to the village and the Khao Luang

National Park were worthwhile in tourism and study.

(ii) daily life, special events and activities related to tourism in the village and

national park were observed and recorded;

During the stay, the researcher took part in every aspect of daily life and

studied all the special circumstances happening in the village and the

Khao Luang National Park.

To fulfill the objective concerning whether sustainable ecotourism in the

village and national park supports environmental conservation, the following

activities were studied.

(i) village leaders and key actor interviews;

70

The village and community leaders, local residents with and without

tourism involvement, experts in Biology and Ecology, and the chief and

staffs of the Khao Luang National Park were interviewed by the author.

To achieve the objective relating to whether sustainable ecotourism in the village

and national park brought benefits to the receiving community without also causing

cultural disruption, this following information was identified:

(i) village demographics;

The number of local residents in the village, number of households, which

did not and did participate in sustainable ecotourism’s activity

(ii) interviews of a sample of villagers;

Twenty households taking part in sustainable ecotourism’s activity were

selected for interviews. Another twenty households without any tourism

involvement were also interviewed by the researcher. Prepared interview

questions about their benefits from this classification of tourism were used

to collect appropriate and useful information.

(iii) the village and the Khao Luang National Park tour, home-staying activity,

its operation and impacts towards local culture and environment were

monitored by the author.

In Herbert and Irene Ruben’s work in 1995, qualitative interviewing includes an

array of ways of questioning. The family of qualitative interviews is different in the

degree of emphasis on culture, in the choice of the area or boundaries of the study, and in

71

the specific patterns of information that are researched. How the researchers interview

depends on what it is the researchers are attempting to learn. Qualitative interviewing is

a great challenge. Each phase of an interview brings new information and opens windows

into the experiences of the people the researcher meets. It is a way of discovering what

others feel and think about their worlds. Through qualitative interviews, the researcher

can understand experiences and reconstruct events which the researcher did not take part

in. By what the researcher perceives and learns, he can extend his intellectual and

emotional approach across time, class, race, sex, and geographical divisions.

Herbert and Irene Rubin (1995) also found the following:

Culture Interviews Culture is about how people interpret the world around them by developing shared understandings. People learn collectively how to interpret what is important and unimportant and how to behave in specific circumstances. Culture provides people with rules about how to operate in the world in which they live and work. (p. 20).

Cultural and Topic Arenas

The next phase in setting up a qualitative study is to identify its scope and boundaries, the research area that defines whom the researcher will be interviewing and about what. A topic area encompasses those who are impacted by a problem or who interact intensely on a narrow issue. A cultural arena includes those who have similar understandings, expectations, and values; such people usually have had common experiences or a shared history. A cultural arena is not defined by a single belief or rule, or by a handful of phrases unique to the group, but by a whole set of understandings that is widely shared within a group or subgroup. (p. 22).

A researcher must know how to cross the boundaries described by the above

authors. They found that culture defines who is an insider and who is an outsider. It

72

establishes boundaries between those who should and those who should not be taught the

rules. To learn about culture, a researcher doesn’t need to become an insider but must be

able to cross the boundaries and to be accepted as one who can be taught.

Procedures

Data collection for the village study together with the Khao Luang National Park

was undertaken by spending two months in the village. In cultural interviewing, the

researcher learned the rule, norms, values and understandings that were passed from one

generation of group members to the next. At times, cultural interviews were conducted in

remote locations or among people whose actions were considered to be unacceptable, to

understand behaviors that seem unusual (Fox, 1987; Lozano and Foltz, 1990; Myers,

1992). Because the researcher was coming to the village as an outsider, it was necessary

that the researcher try to view their culture as they do.

Summary reports for the village and the Khao Luang National Park were prepared

for Chapter 4. The researcher examined benefits and impacts under the following three

headings: the community, biophysical, routine life and culture.

The research was also conducted on such topics as the impact of sustainable

ecotourism, the management of the village forests and national park for tourism, and

local home-made product cooperatives, and ongoing aspects of the tourism employment

sector.

73

Survey questionnaire and data analysis

The visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park

The researcher considered this means of gathering data the least time consuming

procedure for the visitors. To obtain the efficient information from the visitors who

traveled to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, the questions

concerning their experiences were patterned after the works of Wallace and Pierce (1996)

titled “An Evaluation of Ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil”. Some changes were added for

the Thailand’s situation. In addition, the questions were designed to suit the visitors’

limited time and translated into both English and Thai. Both questionnaire copies were

absolutely separated. Descriptive statistics such as frequency and cross tabulation were

included in the SPSS program for quantifiable survey items, which formed the majority

of inquiries. Content analysis was employed to categorize all responses to open-ended

questions. Survey questionnaires for visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park are in Appendix A and B. These questions were related to the

following subjects:

1. visitors’ motivations to the village and the park visit;

2. visitors’ preferences and dislikes of the village and the park visit;

3. visitor perception of gifts, souvenirs and services unavailable in the

village and the park;

4. visitors’ expectations from the trip to the village and the park;

5. visitors’ insights in sustainable ecotourism elements the village and

the park best typify including visitor’s definition of sustainable

ecotourism;

74

6. visitors’ perception of local guides’ training and ability;

7. visitors’ sorts of transportation to reach the village and the park;

8. visitors’ length of stay in the village and the park;

9. carrying capacity of the village and the park;

10. how visitors learned about the village and the park;

11. visitors’ satisfaction level with the village and the park visit; and

12. visitors’ suggestions on how their visits could be improved.

Furthermore, the visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park were asked to provide some useful information such as their place of

domestic or international origin, gender, occupation, income, how they knew about the

village and the national park, their favorite activity during their visit, how they came to

the village and the national park, and the degree of satisfaction toward tourism products

and services provided by the village and national park.

Sample selection

The researcher realized that the determined time of doing the survey, between

September 6th and November 6th, 2000, was the rainy season and low tourist season. The

field research timing limited the sample size. The researcher contacted the village

Ecotourism Club and asked them for the record of visitor registration. The list in the

registration was recorded from April 2nd, 1998 to May 5th, 2000. Normally, the

registration record was manually written by the visitors and the Ecotourism Club

members, which was not systematic and not always easy to comprehend. The researcher

75

randomly selected 21 visitors who visited the Village of Khiriwong and whose contact

addresses were accurate.

Survey administration

The 21 questionnaires with cover letters in Thai were sent by the postal service to

them. Seventy-seven questionnaires with cover letters were also sent by postal service to

the visitors who visited the Khao Luang National Park and whose contact addresses were

valid. Every questionnaire was contained in a white envelope affixed with postage stamp

together with another white envelope affixed with a postage stamp and written home

address so that the respondents could immediately send the questionnaires back to the

researcher after completing all information. The questionnaires from the respondents

were sent directly to the researcher in the Village of Khiriwong. The first questionnaire

was sent to a visitor on September 1st, 2000 and the last questionnaire was received by

the researcher on October 15th, 2000.

The researcher obtained additional surveys at the village and transportation

center, where most tourism activity took place in the village and the Khao Luang

National Park. From September 6th to November 6th, 2000, the researcher walked to the

village center and worked on the survey at a coffee house during 0900 am-500 pm. When

visitors came to the village and stopped over for beverage or souvenirs at the coffee

house, the researcher greeted and solicited their cooperation for the questionnaire

information in person. At times, when the researcher was informed by the villagers that

there were visitors staying somewhere, the researcher would instantly go to greet them

76

and then asked their collaboration in completing the questionnaires. Through this means,

the researcher obtained 60 responses during the two-month stay.

Table 6

Survey administration

Types of visitors

Number of mailed

questionnaires

Number of personal

interviews

Number of questionnaires

returned no address

Number of questionnaires not

returned

Visitors to the Village of Khiriwong (Appendix A)

21 17

0 4

Visitors to the Khao Luang National Park (Appendix B)

77 37

2

38

Table 7

Survey respondents

Areas of study Number of questionnaires administrated

on site

Number of questionnaires

returned by mail

Total number of respondents

The Village of Khiriwong 69 17 86 The Khao Luang National

Park 19 37 56

Visitors’ and tourists’ satisfaction with the trip and tourism activities held by the

Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park were scaled using a five-point

scaling system: very satisfactory, satisfactory, neutral, partially satisfactory and not

satisfactory. A simple mathematics and scoring system summarizes the aggregate

performance of the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park.

77

Interview questions

Interview with the experts in Biology and Ecology (Appendix C and D)

Experts in Biology or Ecology, native to the area of Nakhon Si Thammarat

Province, were selected to interview because of their familiarity with the village and

park. Three experts in Biology and Ecology, who are currently working as college

professors in the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat, provided their insights and

understanding of sustainable ecotourism in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park that contributes to the favorable environmental conservation.

In September 2000, three pages of interview questions, translated and printed in

Thai, were given to those respondents in person and at the same time, the researcher

asked questions and wrote down the conversation. One of the experts made a request to

study all questions a week before the interview. The interviews were completed within

two weeks in September 2000. Interview questions were prepared in two separate copies;

interview questions about the Village of Khiriwong’s tourism and interview questions

about tourism in the Khao Luang National Park.

The interview questions for experts in Biology and Ecology addressed in the

following subjects:

1. discernment of the appropriate modes of transportation to the

village and the park;

2. perceptions of proper group size of visitors to meet the carrying

capacity of the village and the park’s tourism;

3. plans for waste disposal and management in the village and the

park;

78

4. ideas of the accommodation design including architectural style

and materials in accordance with environmental concern in the

village and the park;

5. suggestions for visitor information and visitors’ desired habits for

ecosystem and environment in the village and the park tourism;

6. prediction of tourism impacts by tourists in the village and the

park;

7. agreement with vulnerable tourism activities provided by the

village and the park; and

8. experts’ recommendations of the ideal tourism to the village.

In addition, gender, occupation, including positions and age, were obtained for the study.

Interview questions

The park staff of the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit (Appendix E)

Regarding the objective that emphasizes sustainable ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, park personnel were selected and asked if

sustainable ecotourism in the park is an instrument of environmental conservation. The

interview questions for the park staff are described as follows:

1. the regular mode of transportation and equipment required to travel

to the park;

2. the maximum number of visitors the park should allow each year;

3. waste disposal management in the park;

4. architectural style and facilities in the park;

79

5. ways to provide information about the park and protected areas to

visitors in term of environmental conservation;

6. the environmental impacts of tourism activities arranged by the

park on ecosystems;

7. consensus that tourism can be employed as a means to protect the

park;

8. the collaborative relationship between the park and the Village of

Khiriwong;

9. the ideal trips to protected areas for the visitors;

10. suggestions for improving the experience of park visitors;

11. suggestions for mitigating the impacts of park visitors on the

ecosystems; and

12. visitors’ income, gender and occupation.

Sample selection

The Khao Luang National Park Headquarters’ office (Karom Unit) is located in

Tambon Khao Kaew, Amphoe Lansaka in the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat. Five

park staff who are currently working as fulltime officers were selected for the interview

based on their responsibilities and working positions.

80

Table 8

Sample selection at the Khao Luang National Park

Position Number of interviewees

Park chief 1

Chief assistant 2

Park ranger 2

Total 5

Survey administration

The researcher began doing interviews in October 2000. Regular transportation to

the Khao Luang National Park at Karom Unit was by local pick-up taxi. It took

approximately 30 minutes from the Village of Khiriwong to the main road and then

another 15 minutes by another local pick-up taxi to the entrance of the park. The

researcher continued walking for 15 minutes more to the park office at Karom Unit. The

researcher traveled to the park office each week in October. Appointments were made in

advance because of their work shifts, which were varied. Therefore, the perfect time for

the interviews was during 0730-1100 am on weekdays.

Interview questions

Interview with the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong (Appendix F)

Samples of local residents were solicited with the following questions about the

direct economic and other cost benefits to the local community. Subjects of interest for

the research included:

81

1. local perceptions of changes in the village caused by tourism in

ecological, economic, political and social aspect;

2. tourism impact on local employment in the village;

3. tourism that brings economic benefits to support the village’s

services;

4. the villagers with direct involvement and without any involvement

in tourism;

5. how the villagers utilize their natural resources to support the

village tourism;

6. the villagers’ attitudes towards sustainable ecotourism;

7. what is still required by the village to support sustainable

ecotourism;

8. the villagers’ quality of life after the advent of tourism;

9. negative impacts of tourism on the Village of Khiriwong;

10. collaboration and relationship in tourism between the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park;

11. operations and practices made by the village to benefit the

environment; and

12. the villagers’ income, gender, and main and second occupation.

82

Sample selection

The Village of Khiriwong comprises 678 households of 5 communities; partly

Moo 4, Moo 5, Moo 8, Moo 9 and Moo 10. The total population number is 2,864 in 2000.

20 local residents with tourism involvement and 20 local residents without any tourism

relation from 5 communities were randomly selected by the researcher for the interviews.

Table 9

Sample selection

Communities in the Village of Khiriwong

Local residents with tourism involvement

Local residents without tourism

involvement

Number of interviewees

Wat Samor (Moo 4) 2 3 5 Khiriwong (Moo 5) 5 4 9 Khiri Thong (Moo 8) 3 3 6 Khun Khiri (Moo 9) 5 5 10 Khiri Tham (Moo 10) 5 5 10

Total 20 20 40

Local residents with tourism involvement were randomly chosen from the

membership manifest published by the Ecotourism Club in the Village of Khiriwong.

There are a total of 160 members. The villagers taking part in tourism activities were

classified as porters, tourist assistants, local guides, home-stay hosts, career group

partakers, etc. After choosing from five communities, the researcher asked the host

family or the villagers nearby to take the researcher to the interviewees.

Survey administration

Throughout the two-month stay in the Village of Khiriwong, the researcher often

walked and occasionally asked someone for a ride to the interview, if the way to get to

the interviewees was a long distance or if was raining with the thunderstorms.

83

The researcher interviewed the local residents in person when they were not

working. The researcher introduced the reasons of the interview then asked the

interviewee if the questions were complicated or indiscernible, so that the researcher

could repeat and make the questions simpler. It usually took up to one hour to collect

complete information from one interviewee.

Interview questions

The researcher adopted the methods of structuring a qualitative interview from

Herbert and Irene Rubin (1995). Three categories of qualitative questions were

introduced in this study.

Main Question: Before talking with the interviewee, the researcher prepares

several main questions in order to launch and lead the conversation. Main questions may

change during the course of the research, as the researcher learns what to ask and of

whom to ask it.

Probes: Probes function as a support to help specify the level of depth the

researcher wants. They signal the interviewees that the researcher wants longer and more

detailed information. It helps the interviewee to keep explaining. Also, it asks the

interviewee to finish up a particular answer currently being provided. The researcher may

ask the interviewee to clarify opaque or missing data necessary to understand the answer.

Probes can indicate that the researcher is paying attention.

Follow-Up Questions: Main questions establish the structure for the interview,

control the questioning on the topic, and relate what is asked in the personal interview to

the overall design. Probes elucidate and enlarge the answers, thus making them

84

comprehensible, and mark the interviewees about the anticipated level of depth. They

also reassure the interviewee that the researcher is attentive to the answers. Follow-Up

questions are designed to get the depth that is a gist of qualitative interviewing by

furthering themes that are found, describing the context of answers, and surveying the

implications of what has been stated.

Limitations of study

Between September 6th-November 6th 2000, interviews, observations,

questionnaire administrations were conducted on-site in the Village of Khiriwong and the

Khoa Luang National Park. There were a number of limitations to this study. The

village’s landscape is located in a remote, rural area engulfed with lush mountains,

extensive rain forests and a plantation area in central Na Khon Si Thammarat Province.

Moreover, there were few private lodging accommodations such as resorts available in

the area. As a result, the cost of room and board for two months was fixed and

unaffordable by the researcher. The researcher received significant hospitality and stayed

in the home of a local resident. Food and room were provided through the time of the

study. Additional limitations were classified as follows:

1. The expenditure of the survey was considerable because of the transportation.

It was necessary for the researcher to travel to interview people involved in

this study. However, through the survey period, the researcher mostly walked

to do interviews and the survey. It was usual that the generous villagers would

ask and offer the researcher lifts or other kinds of transportation, like bicycle,

or even truck, to save time and energy.

85

2. The interpretation of the local dialect to official Thai language and English

could sometimes generate misunderstanding and misperceptions. The

researcher would ask the respondents to repeat and translate into Thai again.

On-lookers, while doing survey, often gave their help to the researcher.

3. The communication by the researcher with the study advisors in the United

States of America was inconvenient. The researcher went to the City of

Nakhon Si Thammarat every other week to contact and report any progress of

the study with study advisors by writing e-mail.

4. Interviewer’s bias could be present but is unknown.

Southern Thailand has only two seasons, dry and rainy. The City of Nakhon Si

Thammarat is set on the peninsula between the Andaman Sea and the Gulf of Thailand. It

is a natural landscape that inevitably faces monsoons and storms. Conducting the survey

from September 6th-November 6th 2000 presented an uncertain period climatically and

logistically to the researcher, tourists and residents. These conditions partly resulted in a

distortion of information applied to tourism in the area.

86

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS

This study investigated visitors to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park, experts in Biology and Ecology, park personnel at the Khao Luang

National Park and local residents in the Village of Khiriwong. The visitors to the village

and the park were asked to determine their satisfaction with the village and park tourism.

Experts in Biology and Ecology were requested to provide their perceptions of tourism

activities provided by the village and the park, and the aspect of conservation. Park

personnel were also asked to provide their perceptions of park management as related to

tourism. Local residents with/without tourism involvement were also asked to provide

their notion of tourism in their community.

In this chapter, the three objectives were addressed and compared with the results

of the survey. The objectives emphasized the ensuing: 1) to determine whether

sustainable ecotourism provides the visitors with rewarding experiences, 2) to determine

whether sustainable ecotourism contributes to environmental conservation, and 3) to

determine whether sustainable ecotourism brings economic benefits to the receiving

community without also causing cultural disruption.

87

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong

(Appendix A)

The survey results of visitors to the Village of Khiriwong, which determined

whether sustainable ecotourism provides them with rewarding experiences, were

demonstrated in the ensuing orders:

1. motivations for visiting the village;

2. preferences about village stay;

3. dislikes of the village stay;

4. souvenirs and services visitors would like to have available in

the village;

5. expectations from the trips to the village;

6. perceptions in the elements of sustainable ecotourism in the

village;

7. perception of the local guides’ training and ability;

8. transportation to the village;

9. length of stay;

10. accommodations in the village;

11. number in travel party;

12. how the visitors learn about the village;

13. gender, nationality and place of origin;

14. occupation, income, age; and

15. level of satisfaction with the village tourism.

88

Respondent profile

Of the total respondents to the Village of Khiriwong, 86 were visitors who

traveled to the village during the past two years (1998-1999). Sixty-nine were surveyed in

person during September 6th to November 6th, 2000.

The data relating to the number of respondents and how to gain information from

visitors who traveled to the Village of Khiriwong were demonstrated in Table 10. The

respondents by mail were 17 (19.55%) and the respondents who were asked to complete

survey questionnaires in person were 70 (80.45%). The total respondents about the

village tourism were 87.

Table 10

Number of respondents about the village tourism

Respondents Number of respondents Percent of respondents By mail 17 19.55

In person 70 80.45 Total 87 100.00

n=87

The responses regarding the visitors’ motivations for visiting the Village of

Khiriwong were displayed in order from the largest number to the smallest number

(Table 11). Of the 87 respondents, seventy-one respondents (81.6%) replied that their

ultimate motivation to visit the village was to view the natural landscapes and

environment. The second reason for visiting the village was local people and way of life,

chosen by 55 (63.2%) respondents. The third ranking was for an overnight stay in the

host community.

89

Moreover, there were 12 respondents who selected the item “Other”. The

respondents reasoned that the village has long been sought, since after being awarded the

best ecotourism community in Thailand. Some said “the Savings Group was interesting

to learn” and “the village’s weather and climate was fascinating”.

Table 11

Motivations for visiting the Village of Khiriwong

Motivations Number of respondents Percent of respondents Natural landscapes, environment

71 81.6

Local people, way of life 55 63.2 Overnight stay 37 42.5 Village history 30 34.5 Fruit cultivation, consumption

27 31.0

Handicrafts, souvenirs 26 29.9 Cultural activities 24 27.6 Other 12 13.8

n=87 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 12 disclosed the data related to visitors’ preferences during the park stay.

More than half of the respondents (64.4%) selected the villagers’ hospitality for their

reason for staying in the village. Closely followed by 47 respondents (54.0%) who

desired to experience new and different lifestyles. Forty-seven respondents (54.0%) liked

to obtain ecotourism knowledge and experiences. There were eight respondents choosing

the item “Other” and provided different reasons for their preference, such as village’s

consolidation, no throng of tourists, villagers’ unity, local products, villagers’ geniality,

agro-forests in the village and fruit cultivation activity.

90

Table 12

Visitors’ preferences during the village stay

Preferences Number of respondents Percent of respondents Hospitality of villagers 56 64.4 Experiencing new and different lifestyles

47 54.0

New ecotourism knowledge and experiences

47 54.0

Nice weather 35 40.2 Rainforest scenery 33 37.9 Trying local foods 26 29.9 New kind of tourism 14 16.1 Meeting people with similar interests

14 16.1

Being daring and adventuresome

12 13.8

Other 8 9.2 n=87 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The researcher, however, provided an open-ended question relating to their

dislikes of the village tourism (Table 13). Forty-six out of 87 visitors to the villages

added their ideas about their dislikes. Six of 46 respondents found that the weather was

their obstacle to travel around the village among rains. Seven respondents stated that the

traveling period was too short to learn more about the locals and nature. Ten respondents

discovered that the transportation to the village was inconvenient and without road signs.

Some respondents had trouble contacting the village information because there was no

visitor center to help them. More than that, contacting via telephone was ineffective so

they wasted their time and lacked motivations to travel to the village. Five respondents

found that the households in the village were mostly modernized by the villagers.

91

Table 13

Visitors’ dislikes of the village stay

Dislikes Number of respondents Contacting for village information was inconvenient.

12

Transportation to the village was inconvenient.

10

The village stay including the activities was too short.

7

The weather was not favorable. 6 The villagers’ houses were mostly modernized.

5

The resort accommodation style was not landscaped to the surroundings.

1

There was no map provided in the village 1 The road condition was unsafe. 1 The home-stay was inconvenient. 1

Table 14 listed the kind of gifts and souvenirs the visitors would like to have

available when visiting the village. Forty-nine respondents (56.3) selected books and

other printed materials. Thirty respondents liked to have shirts printed “Khiriwong” on.

Twenty-six respondents selected item “Other” featuring gifts and souvenirs like dry and

preserved foods and fruits, fresh fruits, village’s photos, handicrafts, postcards and textile

products.

Table 14

Gifts and souvenirs visitors would like to have available in the village

Gifts and souvenirs Number of respondents Percent of respondents Books and other printed materials

49 56.3

Shirts printed “Khiriwong” 30 34.5 Other 26 29.9 Key holders 21 24.1

n=87 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

92

Services that visitors would like to have available in the village were revealed in

Table 15. Fifty-one respondents (58.6%) would like to have local and long distance

telephones available in the village. From the survey, the author found that there were only

four public telephones installed around the village. Weather forecasts were second ranked

by 27 respondents (31.0%). Grocery stores were chosen by 24 respondents (27.6%).

Thirteen respondents (14.9%) selected the item “Other”. Bicycle rental, tourist

information center with local representatives, streetlights for safe transportation were

those services the visitors would like to have available.

Table 15

Services visitors would like to have available in the village

Services Number of respondents Percent of respondents Local and long distance telephones

51 58.6

Weather forecasts 27 31.0 Grocery stores 24 27.6 Post office 23 26.4 Car rental 15 17.2 Other 13 14.9 Internet café 6 6.9 Laundry service 5 5.7 Pubs and bars 2 2.3 Fast foods like McDonalds 1 1.1 Casinos and gambling 0 0

n=87 Note The respondents were able to check all preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Visitors’ expectations from the trips to the village were depicted in Table 16.

Sixty-nine respondents (79.3%) selected being close to nature as their first option. Sixty-

five respondents (74.7%) chose learning about the way of life and culture in the village

93

and 34 respondents (39.1%) opted for viewing new landscapes for their second and third

choice. Seven respondents (8.0%) chose the item “Other”. The village’s interesting

background, the community’s consolidation and self-support, and the village’s tourism

management were their expectations from the village’s stay.

Table 16

Visitors’ expectations from the trips to the village

Expectations Number of respondents Percent of respondents Being close to nature 69 79.3

Learning about way of life and culture

65 74.7

Viewing new landscapes 34 39.1 True relaxation 24 27.6 Having fun and being entertained

20 23.0

Doing something new 18 20.7 Meeting new people 17 19.5 Other 7 8.0

n=87 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. One or more selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 17 was an explanation perceived by the visitors of sustainable ecotourism

elements the village best meets. Forty-six respondents (52.9%) found that the village

tourism supports and sustains local ecosystems. Meanwhile, forty-three respondents

(49.4%) experienced that tourism in the village encourages guests to be concerned about,

and protective of the host community and environment. Twenty-five respondents (28.7%)

discerned that the village tourism allows guests to gain an understanding of the region

visited.

94

Table 17

Visitors’ perceptions of sustainable ecotourism elements the village best meets

Sustainable ecotourism elements

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Tourism which supports and sustains local ecosystems

46 52.9

Tourism which encourages guests to be concerned about, and protective of the host community and environment

43 49.4

Tourism which allows guests to gain an understanding of the region visited

25 28.7

Tourism which maintains the full range of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities within and across generations

23 26.4

Tourism which is based upon activities or designs which reflect the character of an area

13 14.9

Tourism which has social equity and community involvement

11 12.6

Tourism which is concerned with the quality of experiences

11 12.6

Other 0 0 n=87 Note The respondents were expected to check only two preferences in this question. One selection was possible from each respondent.

Table 18 showed visitors’ perception of local guides’ training and ability. Sixty-

one respondents (70.1%) informed that local guides were friendly to them during the

village visit. Forty-seven respondents (54.0%) considered that local guides were

95

knowledgeable about the local culture. Local guides were described as knowledgeable

about the ecology and environment by 39 respondents (44.8%). Twelve respondents

(13.87%) selected item “Other”. The respondents reasoned that local guides were

knowledgeable about the village’s history, places of interest, the village’s current

situation and impending problems influenced by the society outside. Yet, there were

some visitors traveling around the village without local guides.

Table 18

Visitors’ notion of local guides’ training and ability

Guides’ training and ability Number of respondents Percent of respondents Friendly 61 70.1 Knowledgeable about the local culture

47 54.0

Knowledgeable about ecology and environment

39 44.8

Helpful 35 40.2 Knowledgeable about the plants and animals

15 17.2

Other 12 13.8 n=87 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 19 portrayed modes of transportation the visitors used to visit the Village of

Khiriwong. Trains were selected by 31 respondents, (36.0%) who came from other

distant provinces. Twenty-three respondents (26.7%) used cars to travel to the village.

Twenty-two respondents (25.6%) selected buses for their transportation to the village.

Nine respondents (10.5%) selected item “Other” which characterized transportation

modes of hired-van and airplane. From the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat to the village,

96

the visitors needed to use another mode of transportation to the village, which was

approximately 20 kilometers.

Table 19

Visitors’ transportation to the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat

Modes of transportation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Train 31 36.0 Car 23 26.7 Bus 22 25.6

Other 9 10.5 Plane 1 1.2 Total 86* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Table 20 manifested modes of transportation from the city to the village. Thirty-

six respondents (41.9%) used cars to travel to the village. Thirty-one respondents (36.0%)

selected item “Other”, which featured hired-vans, pick-up taxis, buses and walking to the

Village of Khiriwong.

Table 20

Visitors’ transportation from the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat to the village

Modes of transportation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Car 36 41.9

Other 31 36.0 Bus 18 20.9

Walk 1 1.2 Total 86* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Table 21 was an indicator of the visitors’ length of stay in the village.

Thirty respondents (35.3%) spent three to five days on an overnight stay and attending

97

the village tourism activities. Twenty-six respondents (30.6%) spent two days (equaled

one night and one day) in the village. Twenty-four respondents (28.2%) spent their whole

day (from dusk till dawn) and five respondents (5.9%) spent a few hours in the village.

Table 21

Visitors’ average length of stay in the village

Length of stay Number of respondents Percent of respondents Three to five days 30 35.3 Two days 26 30.6 One day 24 28.2 Less than one day 5 5.9

Total 85* 100.00 n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Table 22 demonstrated how the visitors stayed in the host community. Forty-

seven respondents (58.8%) stayed with host families. Seventeen respondents (21.3%)

selected item “Other” featuring staying in resorts established and owned by the villagers.

Ten respondents (12.5%) did not overnight in the village. Some put up their tents in the

village area.

Table 22

Visitors’ accommodations during their stay in the village

Accommodation Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Home stay 47 60.1 Other 18 21.3 No overnight 10 12.5 Camping, tents 5 6.3 Total 80* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

98

Number in the travel party was showed in Table 23. Forty-one respondents

(48.8%) stated that they visited the village as group of travelers varying from 15 to 60.

Twenty-five respondents (29.8%) traveled to the village with more than three. From the

survey, there was only one respondent who traveled to the village alone.

Table 23

Visitors’ number in travel party

Number in travel party Number of respondents Percent of respondents Other 41 48.8

More than three people 25 29.8 Three 12 14.3 Two 5 6.0 One 1 1.2 Total 84* 100.00

n=87

*Number varies due to non-respondents.

In Table 24, how the visitors understood the village tourism was clarified. Thirty-

eight respondents (44.7%) selected item “Other”. They knew the village by the

recommendation of their schoolteachers, by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT),

by watching the documentary tourism program featuring the village on television, by the

documentary magazines and by the Lonely Planet Guidebook to travel to the village.

99

Table 24

How visitors learned about the village

Medium

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Other 38 44.7 Word of mouth 30 35.3 Friends 26 30.6 Travel magazines 25 29.4 Internet web site 3 3.5 Travel agent 2 2.4 Total 86* 100.00

n=87

*Number varies due to non-respondents. Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 25 showed the visitors’ gender which were categorized as 47 female (56%)

and 37 male respondents (44.0%).

Table 25

Visitors’ gender

Visitors’ gender Number of respondents Percent of respondents Female 47 56.0 Male 37 44.0 Total 84* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Visitors were also classified by their nationalities (Table 26). The result

demonstrated that most of the visitors to the village were Thai (95.4%). There were four

foreign tourists (4.6%) from Germany, Australia and France visiting the village during

the survey.

100

Table 26

Visitors’ nationality

Visitors’ nationality Number of respondents Percent of respondents Thai 83 95.4

Western 4 4.6 Total 87 100.00

n=87

As shown in Table 27, visitors to the village came from various part of the

country and from other world regions. Twenty-five respondents (28.7%) came from

central Thailand. Twenty-one respondents (24.1%) came from the nearby provinces of

the south. Sixteen respondents (11.5%) came from the capital city of Bangkok whereas

only 10 visitors (11.5%) who were the citizens of Nakhon Si Thammarat Province

traveled to the village.

Table 27

Visitors’ place of origin

Place of origin Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Central Thailand 25 28.7 Southern Thailand 21 24.1 Bangkok 16 18.4 Nakhon Si Thammarat 10 11.5 Northeastern Thailand 5 5.7 Northern Thailand 3 3.4 Eastern Thailand 3 3.4 Europe 3 3.4 Australia 1 3.4 Total 87 100.00

n=87

In Table 28, thirty-nine respondents (46.4%) were student travelers to the village.

Seventeen respondents (20.2%) were self-employed or had their own businesses. Twelve

respondents (14.3%) were government officials working in schools or other government

101

departments. Five respondents picked out item “Other” characterizing themselves as

farmers and gardeners.

Table 28

Visitors’ occupation

Visitors’ occupation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Student 39 46.4 Self-employed 17 20.2 Government service 12 14.3 Employee 10 11.9 Other 5 6.0 Unemployed 1 1.2 Total 84* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

From the survey outcome (Table 29), thirty respondents (37.0%) earned less than

US$ 100 per month. Seventeen respondents (21.0%) received between US$ 101-200 per

month. There were 10 respondents (12.3%) who earned more than US$ 500 per month.

Table 29

Visitors’ average income

Visitors’ average income per month

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Less than US$ 100 30 37.0 Between US$ 101-200 17 21.0 Between US$ 201-300 11 13.6 Between US$ 301-400 6 7.4 Between US$ 401-500 7 8.6 More than US$ 500 10 12.3 Total 81* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

102

Table 30 described the visitors’ age categories. Fifty-four respondents (63.5%)

were the travelers between 20-29 years old. Thirteen respondents (15.3%) were between

30-39 years old of age. There were four respondents (4.7%) between 10-19 years old.

Table 30

Visitors’ age

Visitors’ age Number of respondents Percent of respondents 10-19 4 4.7 20-29 54 63.5 30-39 13 15.3 40-49 7 8.2 50-59 7 8.2 Total 85* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Eighty-one respondents (93.1%) replied that they would travel to the village

again, whereas, there was one respondent who would not. Five respondents (5.7%) were

not able to predict a future visit.

Table 31

Visitors’ plans to visit the village again

Visitors will come to visit the village again

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Yes 81 93.1 No 1 1.1

Not sure 5 5.7 Total 87 100.00

n=87

103

Fifty-seven respondents (67.1%) of the totaling 87, expressed their very satisfying

and rewarding experiences of the village’s visit. Sixteen respondents (18.8%) also were

satisfied with their trip to the village. Importantly, there were no visitors indicating an

unsatisfying village tourism experience.

Table 32

Visitors’ satisfaction with their visits to the Village of Khiriwong

Visitors’ satisfaction with their visit to the village

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Very satisfied 57 67.1 Satisfied 16 18.8 Neutral 10 11.8 Partially satisfied 2 2.4 Total 85* 100.00

n=87 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

104

Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park

(Appendix B)

The survey results of visitors to the Khao Luang National Park, which determined

whether sustainable ecotourism provides them with rewarding experiences, were

demonstrated in the following subjects of interest to the researcher:

1. motivations for visiting the park;

2. preferences about the park tourism;

3. gifts, souvenirs and services visitors would like to have available

in the park;

4. expectations from the trip to the park;

5. perceptions in the elements of sustainable ecotourism in the

park;

6. opinion of the best characteristics the park provided;

7. notion of the local guides’ training and ability in the park;

8. transportation to the park;

9. length of stay;

10. accommodations in the park;

11. number in travel party;

12. how visitors learn about the park;

13. gender, nationality and place of origin;

14. occupation, income, age; and

15. level of satisfaction with the park tourism.

105

Respondent profile

Of the total number of respondents of visitors who traveled to the Khao Luang

National Park, 56. 37% were visitors who traveled to the village during the past two years

(1998-1999). Nineteen were asked to complete the survey in person.

Table 33 demonstrated visitors’ motivations for a park visit. Mountains were most

frequent choice by 45 respondents (80.4%). Forty respondents (71.4%) were attracted to

the park vegetation. Thirty-four of the respondents (60.7%) were motivated by

sightseeing. Thirteen respondents selected item “Other”. Traveling to the park was a good

indicator of their strength and endurance; forest tourism, new experiences like local

people, foods and dialect, and the park staff and displays motivated them to the park.

Table 33

Visitors’ motivations for visiting the Khao Luang National Park

Visitors’ motivations for visiting the park

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Mountains 45 80.4 Diversity of vegetation 40 71.4 National park sightseeing 34 60.7 Waterfalls, streams 31 55.4 Rainforest walks 20 35.7 Rainforest day trips 15 26.8 Other 13 23.2 Wildlife viewing 9 16.1

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

106

The visitors to the park depicted their preferences after visiting the park, in Table

34. Fifty-one respondents (91.1%) selected their predominant likes of natural beauty,

waterfalls and streams. Preference for landscapes, geographic location and mountains

were rated second by 42 respondents (75%). Preference for native wild plants was chosen

by 40 respondents (71.4%). Only three respondents (5.4%) selected the park’s exhibition

for their preference.

Table 34

Visitors’ preferences after visiting the park

Visitors’ preferences Number of respondents Percent of respondents Natural beauty, waterfalls and streams

51 91.1

Landscapes, geographic location and mountains

42 75.0

Native wild plants 40 71.4 Climate or weather 21 37.5 Park staff and guides 14 25.0 Native wild animals 10 17.9 Other 5 8.9 Park’s exhibitions 3 5.4

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The researcher also prepared an open-ended question to ask the respondents about

what they disliked or felt unsatisfactory about the park tourism. Currently, most trips to

the park and expressly to the Khao Luang summit were provided and administered by the

Ecotourism Club in the Village of Khiriwong. Thirty-two of 56 found that the trips to

Khao Luang should be remodeled and improved. Six respondents were not satisfied with

the fees and expenses of food, overnight stay provided by the local residents on the

107

summit. Some respondents mentioned that they were greatly scared of leeches, which

were commonly found along the way in the park. Inexperienced local guides, unsanitary

toilets, boisterous weather, inconvenient way to the park, no signs for pre-caution while

traveling in the park were the comments after visiting the Khao Luang. Respondents

stated that they spent too much time on communicating with the Ecotourism Club for

their trips to the park.

Table 35 demonstrated gifts and souvenirs visitors would like to have available in

the park. Thirty-six respondents (65.5%) would like to have books and other printed

materials available. Twenty-five respondents (45.5%) preferred to have shirts printed

“Khao Luang”. Twelve respondents chose item “Other” which was classified into local

foods and products, postcards and pictures, certificates, wild plants for sale, and park

personnel knowledgeable in environment and wildlife. There were two respondents who

would not prefer to have anything else in the park.

Table 35

Gifts and souvenirs visitors would like to have available in the park

Gifts and souvenirs Number of respondents Percent of respondents Books and other printed material about Khao Luang

36 65.5

Shirts printed “Khao Luang” 25 45.5 Key holders 15 27.3 Other 12 21.8

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

108

In Table 36, three most frequently chosen services that visitors would like to have

available in the park were local and long distance telephones by 34 respondents, grocery

stores by 27 respondents and weather forecasts by 25 respondents. Seven respondents

selected item “Other”. They would like to have knowledgeable park guides, local food

service in the park area, first-aid service, and more toilets and restrooms. There were two

respondents who preferred nothing else available in the park.

Table 36

Services visitors would like to have available in the park

Services Number of respondents Percent of respondents Local and long distance telephones

34 61.8

Grocery stores 27 49.1 Weather forecasts 25 45.5 Car rental 14 25.5 Post office 7 12.7 Other 7 12.7 Internet café 2 3.6 Fast foods like McDonalds 2 3.6 Laundry service 2 3.6 Casinos and gambling 0 0 Pubs and bars 0 0

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The responses in Table 37 were rated from the most frequently chosen number to

the least chosen number. Fifty-two of 56 respondents (92.9%) selected being close to

nature as their highest expectation of visiting the park. Thirty-three respondents (58.9%)

wanted to view new landscapes. Thirty respondents expected to have fun and be

entertained. Six respondents selected item “Other” which characterized the expectations

109

to view the untouched natural environment, to observe endemic wild plants in the park, to

see rare wild animals, to prove his traveling stamina, and to experience the rainforest.

Table 37

Visitors’ expectations on visiting the park

Expectations Number of respondents Percent of respondents Being close to nature 52 92.9 Viewing new landscapes 33 58.9 Having fun and being entertained

30 53.6

Learning about way of life and culture

26 46.4

True relaxation 23 41.1 Doing something new 13 23.2 Other 6 10.7 Meeting new people 5 8.9

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Visitors were asked to identify their perception of the park’s sustainable

ecotourism elements, which the park best qualifies (Table 38). Twenty-three respondents

(41.1%) agreed that tourism provided by the park encouraged guests to be concerned

about, and protective of the host community and environment. Nineteen respondents

(33.9%) agreed with tourism administrated by the park and that it supported and

sustained local ecosystems. Eighteen respondents (32.1%) believed that tourism provided

by the park allowed guests to gain an understanding of the region. Yet, one respondent

advanced the unique idea that the park was devoid of those elements.

110

Table 38

Visitors’ perceptions of sustainable ecotourism elements the park best meets

Sustainable ecotourism element the park best

meets

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Tourism which encourages guests to be concerned about, and protective of the host community and environment

23 41.1

Tourism which supports and sustains local ecosystems

19 33.9

Tourism which allows guests to gain an understanding of the region visited

18 32.1

Tourism which is concerned with the quality of experiences

15 26.8

Tourism which maintains the full range of recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities within and across generations

13 23.2

Tourism which has social equity and community involvement

12 21.4

Tourism which is based upon activities or designs which reflect the character of an area

10 17.9

Other 1 1.8 n=56 Note The respondents were expected to check only two preferences in this question. One selection was possible from each respondent.

After the trips to the park, the respondents revealed their experiences derived

from the park’s characteristics (Table 39). Forty-two respondents (75%) agreed that the

park used guides native to the visited area. Twenty-six respondents (46.4%) verified that

111

the park actively managed the group size of visitors to the park. Fourteen respondents

found that the park had the efficient management plans for lodging accommodation. Four

respondents (7.1%) provided various concepts toward the park’s characteristics, which

included the helpful park staff, the indigenous tropical plants found in the park, and the

park’s rigid natural protection.

Table 39

Visitors’ opinions of the best characteristics the park provided

Park’s predominant features Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Using guides native to visited area

42 75.0

Group size of visitors to the park

26 46.4

Activities sensitivity to plants and animals

20 35.7

Management plans for lodging accommodation

14 25.0

Pack-it-out requirement 12 21.4 Waste disposal 10 17.9 Providing a pre-arrival information packet

5 8.9

Knowledgeable local guides 4 7.1 Other 4 7.1

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 40 described the local guides’ training and performance. Forty-three

(76.8%) and 42 (75.0%) respondents found that the local guides were friendly and helpful

respectively. Three respondents founded that local guides performed well in their local

but academic field.

112

Table 40

Visitors’ perceptions of the local guides’ training and ability

Local guides’ training and ability

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Friendly 43 76.8 Helpful 42 75.0 Knowledgeable about the plants and animals

28 50.0

Knowledgeable about the local culture

23 41.1

Knowledgeable about ecology and environment

16 28.6

Other 3 5.4 n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Table 41 showed visitors’ modes of transportation from their places to the City of

Nakhon Si Thammarat. Traveling by car to the city was selected by 25 respondents

(44.6%). Eighteen respondents (32.1%) traveled to the city by bus. Twelve respondents

(21.4%) selected item “Other”. They described that they hired the van services and pick-

up taxis to travel to the city.

Table 41

Visitors’ travel modes to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat

Modes of transportation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Car 25 44.6 Bus 18 32.1

Other 12 21.4 Train 1 1.8 Total 56 100.00

n=56

113

Table 42 manifested the visitors’ modes of transportation to the park. Thirty

respondents (53.6%) traveled to the park by car. Twenty respondents (35.7%) chose item

“Other”. The respondents traveled to the park by the pick-up taxis, and by hiring the van

services.

Table 42

Visitors’ travel modes from the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat to the park

Modes of transportation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Car 30 53.6

Other 20 35.7 Bus 6 10.7

Total 56 100.00 n=56

The visitors’ average length of stay was portrayed in Table 43. Twenty-nine

respondents (51.8%) spent three to five days during their park visit. Twenty-one

respondents (37.5%) were in the park two days. Five respondents spent one day at the

park.

Table 43

Visitors’ average length of stay

Length of stay Number of respondents Percent of respondents One day 5 8.9 Two days 21 37.5 Three to five days 29 51.8 Other 1 1.8 Total 56 100.00

n=56

Most visitors staying over in the park pitched camps (73.6%). Twelve respondents

(22.6%) stayed in the cabins provide by the park. Five respondents selected item “Other”.

114

The respondents stayed a night in the cabin and another night by setting up tents in the

park.

Table 44

Visitors’ accommodations in the park

Accommodation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Camping, tents 39 69.64 Cabin 12 21.42 Other 5 8.92 Total 56 100.00

n=56

Most travel parties to the park were comprised more than three people in a group

(60.7%). Sixteen respondents (28.6%) selected item “Other”, which described as the

group of eight to 10 and 13-14 people.

Table 45

Visitors’ number in travel party to the park

Number in travel party Number of respondents Percent of respondents Only yourself 1 1.8 Two 2 3.6 Three 3 5.4 More than three people 34 60.7 Other 16 28.6 Total 56 100.00

n=56

Table 46 clarified how visitors got to know the park. Thirty-nine respondents

(69.6%) knew about the park via friends. Twenty-five respondents (44.6%) were

introduced to the park by travel magazines. Thirteen respondents (23.2%) knew the park

by word of mouth. Nine respondents chose item “Other”; which they knew the park by

watching the traveling documentary program on television, and by relatives.

115

Table 46

How visitors learned about the park

Medium Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Friends 39 69.6 Travel magazines 25 44.6 Word of mouth 13 23.2 Other 9 16.1 Internet web site 4 7.1 Travel agent 0 0

n=56 Note The respondents were able to check any preferences in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

From the result as shown in Table 47, there were 38 female and 18 male visitors

traveling to the park. Therefore, the total visitor number was 56.

Table 47

Visitors’ gender

Gender Number of respondents Percent of respondents Female 38 67.9 Male 18 32.1 Total 56 100.00

n=56

Table 48 classified the visitors’ nationality. 55 respondents (98.2%) were Thai

and only one (1.8%) was Canadian.

Table 48

Visitors’ nationality

Nationality Number of respondents Percent of respondents Thai 55 98.2 Other 1 1.8 Total 56 100.00

n=56

116

Table 49 demonstrated where the visitors to park were from. Twenty-three

respondents (41.1%) were the local people of Nakhon Si Thammarat Province. Nineteen

respondents were identified as visitors from Bangkok. Seven respondents were visitors

from the south. There was only one visitor from Canada.

Table 49

Visitors’ place of origin

Place of origin Number of respondents Percent of respondents Nakhon Si Thammarat 23 41.1 Bangkok 19 33.9 Southern Thailand 7 12.5 Central Thailand 3 5.4 Eastern Thailand 2 3.6 Canada 1 1.8 Northeastern Thailand 1 1.8

Total 56 100.00 n=56

Table 50 categorized the visitors’ occupation. Twenty-seven visitors who were

government services were the largest group. Seventeen respondents were employees.

Five respondents were students. “Other” was an ecologist.

Table 50

Visitors’ occupation

Visitors’ occupation Number of respondents Percent of respondents Government service 27 49.1

Employee 17 30.9 Student 5 9.1

Self-employed 4 7.3 Other 1 1.8

Unemployed 1 1.8 Total 55* 100.00

n=56 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

117

Visitors’ average income was contained in Table 51. Sixteen respondents (29.6%)

were visitors whose income is between US$ 301-400 per month. Eleven respondents

(20.4%) received between US$ 201-300 per month. Eleven respondents (20.4%) earned

more than US$ 500 per month. There were only five respondents (9.3%) who received

less than US$ 100 per month.

Table 51

Visitors’ average income

Visitors’ income per month

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Less than US$ 100 5 9.3 Between US$101-200 3 5.6 Between US$-201-300 11 20.4 Between US$301-400 16 29.6 Between US$401-500 8 14.8 More than US$500 11 20.4

Total 54* 100.00 n=56 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Visitors’ age was depicted in Table 52 with the interval of 10 years. 23 visitors

aging from 30 to 39 years old were the largest group. Twenty-one respondents were

visitors aging from 20 to 29 years old. There was one respondent in the interval of 50 to

59 years old.

118

Table 52

Visitors’ age

Visitors’ age Number of respondents Percent of respondents 10-19 3 5.5 20-29 21 38.2 30-39 23 41.8 40-49 7 12.7 50-59 1 1.8 Total 55* 100.00

n=56 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Visitors to the park were requested to provide their ideas whether they would

return to the park. Forty-four respondents (81.5%) would travel back to the park again

whereas 10 respondents (18.5%) would not to do so.

Table 53

Visitors’ plans to visit the park again

Visitors’ plan to visit the park again

Number of respondents Percent of respondents

Yes 44 81.5 No 10 18.5

Total 54* 100.00 n=56 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

Table 54 clearly demonstrated the visitors’ level of satisfactions perceived from

the trips to the Khao Luang National Park. Thirty-seven respondents (67.3%) stated that

their trips were very satisfactory. Nine respondents (16.4%) were satisfied with the trips.

Eight respondents (14.5%) felt neutral about the trip.

119

Table 54

Visitors’ satisfaction with their visits to the Khao Luang National Park

Visitors’ satisfaction Number of respondents Percent of respondents Very satisfied 37 67.3

Satisfied 9 16.4 Neutral 8 14.5

Partially satisfied 1 1.8 Total 55* 100.00

n=56 *Number varies due to non-respondents.

120

The Interviews with experts in Biology and Ecology

(Appendix C and D)

The interview survey of the experts in Biology and Ecology, which determined

whether sustainable ecotourism contributes environmental conservation to the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit, were demonstrated in the

following subjects:

1. the appropriate mode of transportation required to travel to the

Village of Khiriwong;

2. the Village of Khiriwong’s suitable waste disposal management;

3. the recommended design, architectural style and facilities for the

Village of Khiriwong;

4. the Village of Khiriwong’s means to distribute tourism

information about the desired behavior to visitors;

5. the impacts of village tourism on ecosystems;

6. agreement with the tourism activities provided by the Village of

Khiriwong;

7. perception of ideal trips to the village; and

8. experts’ gender.

121

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong

From the interview, the results in Table 55 show the ideal mode of transportation

to the park. The experts advised that an off-road and four-wheel car should be used for

traveling to the village. The road was built with cement and the condition was pretty

standard. Furthermore, the transportation in the village was not too congested. The

experts reasoned that those vehicles would not generate a good deal of pollution to the

village and surroundings. Motorbikes were not recommended to use in the village

because of their annoying noises. Yet, if necessary, controlling motorbike’s speed should

be a priority. Two experts supported the idea that walking to the village was a favorable

way to the village, but it was distant (eight kilometers) from the main road to the village.

Table 55

Experts’ recommended travel modes to the Village of Khiriwong

Recommended modes of transportation to the park

Number of respondents

Off-road 3 Four-wheel 3

Walk 2 n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The researcher prepared an open-ended question concerning the carrying capacity

of visitors for the Village of Khiriwong. The experts were asked to provide their ideas of

the suitable carrying capacity the village can support in tourists per day. Experts no.1 and

no.2 stated that the proper number should be between 20-30 visitors per day. Meanwhile,

expert no.3 found that the village could support 100 visitors per day. All experts reasoned

122

that the village tourism was for short visits and the monsoon periods would also limit the

number of tourists.

Table 56 demonstrated the ideal waste disposal management system for the

village. All the experts agreed that a local municipal garbage system should be provided

by the village. One respondent also suggested a municipal recycling system. This system

would help decrease the quantity of waste. The usables or recycled such as paper, glass

bottles, metallic materials, etc. could be reprocessed.

Table 56

Experts’ recommendations for waste disposal management by the village

Ideal waste disposal management Number of respondentsMunicipal garbage system 3 Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat 0 Bury on property 0 Municipal recycle garbage system 1 Free disposal 0 Burn 0 Compost 0 Pit 0 Other 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The experts recommended two types of accommodation. They were villagers’

homes and the cottage. The villagers’ houses were the best accommodation for visitors.

The cottage was also selected as an alternative if guests preferred privacy.

123

Table 57

Experts’ recommended accommodations the village should provide for visitors

Preferred accommodations Number of respondents Home 2 Cottage 1 Camping 0 Resort 0 Hotel, motel 0 Caravan 0 Farmhouse 0 Cabin 0 Other 0

n=3

Table 58 showed the experts’ recommended modes of tourist information for the

visitors’ actions while visiting the village. Desired behavior should be clearly explained

and employed with adages rather than warnings. Information provided on the spot or

before touring should be in the orientation. The experts reasoned that, at times,

orientation could help better understanding of the village’s rules and regulations. A

punishment for not obeying the village’s rules was also advised. For any other useful

information for the visitors, the experts presented the idea that signs explaining native

plants’ names and uses should be installed, so that the visitors could observe and learn.

The village’s tourism leaflets or manuals were other means to give the visitors, so that

they could learn before touring.

124

Table 58

Experts’ recommended modes of tourist information for desired behavior

while visiting the village

Modes of tourist information Number of respondents Post desired behavior 3 On spot or before touring 2 Brochures 1 Internet web site 1 Travel magazines 1 Other 1

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The experts presented their perceptions of environmental impacts observed from

tourism activities in the village in Table 59. Wildlife disturbance, pollution caused by

vehicles and wastes were prone to take place during the visit. They believed that tourists

to the village would probably take home the native wild plants from the villagers’ fruit

gardens, which were grown together with the forests. One expert added that certain kinds

of wild orchids were now scarcely seen because of the trading between visitors and

tourists or free gifts for visitors after the tours ended. The experts found that vehicles like

tourist buses, etc. could generate smoke and exhaust fumes. Wastes and refuse such as

plastic bags, beverage cans and bottles, were brought to the village by tourism.

Detrimental use of the natural trails would also occur when the tourists bush walk or

observe gardens.

125

Table 59

Experts’ perception of environmental impacts of tourism activities in the

village

Environmental impacts Number of respondents Wildlife disturbance 2 Pollution caused by vehicles 2 Wastes 2 Walking off the natural trails 1 Other 0 Noise 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

In Table 60, one expert reasoned that the local residents, however, needed to

understand their own environment and wildlife in the village, as much as possible.

Another expert thought that the villagers needed to comprehend the village tourism

principles. Any tourism investment from the outsiders should include discussion and

understanding with other stakeholders. More specifically, village tourism should provide

equality of benefits and participation by the whole host community, if practical. One

expert agreed with the village tourism values, and thought the host community should

have management plans and control the impacts generated by tourism. In conclusion, the

researcher discovered that all three experts in Biology and Ecology, unanimously,

accepted the tourism in the Village of Khiriwong. With some exceptions, the villagers

needed to understand their environmental background, wildlife, etc. and comprehend the

village tourism’s principles. All tourism management and, expressly environmental

conservation in the village, should be reciprocally monitored and operated by the

villagers themselves.

126

Table 60

Experts’ agreement with tourism provided by the village

Agreement with the village tourism Number of respondents Yes 3 No 0

Total 3 n=3

Table 61 depicted the experts’ perception of ideal trips to the village. All

considered that the village tourism should cause no harm to the village and the

surroundings, or disturbance to the village’s way of life and the same time, visitors can

learn and respect the village’s mores.

Table 61

Experts’ perception of ideal trips to the Village of Khiriwong

Ideal trips to the village Number of respondents Tourism that causes no harm to the village and the surroundings

3

Tourism that causes no disturbance to the village’s way of life

3

Tourism so visitors can learn to value the village’s way of life

3

Other 0 n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

To acquire the primary information, the author interviewed one female and two

male experts who were working as professors at a public college in the City of Na Khon

Si Thammarat.

127

Table 62

Experts’ gender

Experts’ gender Number of respondents

Male 2 Female 1 Total 3

n=3

128

Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit

The interview survey of the experts in Biology and Ecology, which determined

whether sustainable ecotourism contributes environmental conservation to the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit, was demonstrated in the

following subjects:

1. the appropriate mode of transportation required to travel to the park;

2. the park’s suitable waste disposal management;

3. the recommended design, architectural style and facilities for the park;

4. the park’s means to distribute tourism information about the desired

behavior to visitors;

5. the impact of park tourism on the ecosystems;

6. agreement with the tourism activities provided by the park;

7. perception of ideal trips to the park; and

8. experts’ gender.

Table 63 portrayed the experts’ recommended travel modes to the park. Walking

was the most advised. They reasoned that walking was the most appropriate means to

explore the outdoor recreation zone and the primitive zone in the national park and it was

not detrimental to wildlife. Four-wheel and off-road vehicles might be used within the

park’s service zone.

129

Table 63

Experts’ perceptions of travel modes recommended to the park

Travel modes recommended Number of respondents Walk 3

Four-wheel 2 Off-road 1

Other 1 n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The researcher prepared an open-ended question relating to the visitor carrying

capacity for the park. From the interview survey, expert no.1 found that the appropriate

number of visitors to the Khao Luang National Park at Karom Unit should be around

3,000-4,000 per month. Expert no.2 considered the park could support 3,000 visitors per

month. However, expert no.3 was not sure about the number of visitors that should be

allowed within a year at the park.

Regarding the waste disposal management recommended by the experts in Table

64, two experts considered categorizing wastes before eradication. Park should sort the

kinds of wastes. The decomposable should be left or buried in the park area for self-decay

and become natural manure, but non-degradable like plastic containers, styrofoam food

containers, cans, etc. should be returned to the city for eradication or recycling.

130

Table 64

Experts’ recommendations for waste disposal management by the park

Waste disposal management Number of respondents Other 2 Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat 1 Compost 1 Free disposal 1 Municipal recycle garbage system 1 Burn 0 Bury on property 0 Municipal garbage system 0 Pit 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The experts selected the most suitable accommodation patterns of camping, tents

and cabins provided by the park (Table 65). Setting up tents should be limited in the

campground area and expressly prohibited at the Khao Luang peak. The experts believed

that camping, tents and cabins were the least inimical to the surroundings and wildlife.

Table 65

Experts’ suggested accommodations the park should provide for visitors

Accommodation patterns Number of respondents Camping, tents 3 Cabins 2 Home 0 Resort 0 Hotel, motel 0 Caravan 0 Cottage 0 Farmhouse 0 Other 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

131

In Table 66, the experts believed that the best means to provide information to

visitors is posting desired behavior and informing visitors on the spot or before touring.

Permanent signs were recommended. Park staff, local guides and porters were also

instrumental in promoting conservation, as well. Brochures or manuals describing “do’s

& don’ts” were advised, so that visitors could learn and follow the park rules.

Table 66

Experts’ recommended modes of tourist information for desired behavior

while visiting the park

Modes of tourist information Number of respondents Post desired behavior 2 On spot or before touring 2 Brochures 2 Other 0 Internet web site 0 Travel magazines 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

From the experts’ perception of environmental effects caused by the tourism

activities in the park, some wildlife disturbance was prone to unavoidably occur (Table

67). Wastes, noise, walking off the natural trails, pollution from vehicles were mentioned

as environmental impacts created by tourism. One expert added that the impact of

pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers used by the villagers in the park area should not be

overlooked by the park.

132

Table 67

Experts’ perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism activities in the park

Environmental impacts Number of respondents Wildlife disturbance 3 Wastes 2 Noise 1 Walking off the natural trails 1 Pollution caused by the vehicles 1 Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers 1 Other 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

All the experts agreed that park tourism should be operated by the park and the

village (Table 68). They believed, however, that the park tourism management should be

collaboration by both the park and the Village of Khiriwong. One expert found that

management plans were important and should be followed by both the host community

leaders and the local residents. More principles were also required, so that the local

residents could realize and exercise ecotourism in an appropriate way. One expert

mentioned that the park itself should form more efficient park tourism and prepare itself

for tourism. The park would be no longer the place for relaxation only. The park should

be sources of knowledge, entertainment and a natural library for public use under rigid

administration. Also, the park should be the place where local residents could be involved

in the sharing of tourism benefits.

133

Table 68

Experts’ agreement with tourism provided by the park

Agreement with the park tourism Number of respondents Yes 3 No 0

Total 3 n=3

The ideal trips to the park were clarified in Table 69. All experts agreed that

proper tourism should cause no harm to nature and the ecosystems, tourism so visitors

can learn the values of ecosystems and cause no harm to wildlife. One expert believed

that visitors should be limited to taking pictures and observing the scenery. Another

expert added the park needed guides who were knowledgeable about wildlife and the

environment.

Table 69

Experts’ perceptions of ideal trips to the Khao Luang National Park

Ideal trips to the park Number of respondents Tourism that causes no harm to nature and the ecosystems

3

Tourism so visitors can learn the values of the ecosystems and environment

3

Tourism that causes no harm to wildlife 3 Other 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The author interviewed one female and two male experts who were working as

professors in Biology and Ecology at a public college in the City of Nakhon Si

Thammarat.

134

Table 70

Experts’ gender

Experts’ gender Number of respondents Male 2

Female 1 Total 3

n=3

135

The Interviews with the Khao Luang National Park staff

(Appendix E)

The interview survey of the Khao Luang National Park staff determined whether

sustainable ecotourism contributes to the environmental conservation. The following

subjects were of interest to the researcher.

1. Regular modes of transportation and equipment required to travel

to the park

2. The maximum number of visitors the park should accommodate

each month

3. Waste disposal management

4. Accommodation designs, architectural style and facilities

5. Tourist information distribution about the park and protected areas

to visitors in terms of environmental conservation

6. Environmental impact of tourism activities on ecosystems

7. Agreement with tourism as a means to protect the park

8. Collaborative relationship between the Khao Luang National Park

and the Village of Khiriwong

9. Ideal trips to the protected areas

10. Suggestions for improving the experiences of park visitors

11. Suggestions for mitigating the impact of park visitors on the

ecosystems

12. Park’s staff average income

13. Gender of park staff

136

The park staff explained that walking was the usual traveling mode to explore the

park beyond the intensive use zone (Table 71). The road to the park office was

permanently built with cement. Pick-up car and pick-up taxis were normally used to

travel from the city or any other place to get to the park. Travel by tourist buses or

coaches was limited to only the park’s parking lot. However, the parking lot could

support up to 45 cars. In addition, motorbikes were often used by visitors.

Table 71

Regular modes of transportation to the park

Regular modes of transportation Number of respondents Walk 4 Pick-up car 4 Other 0 Four-wheel car 0 Off-road car 0

n=5 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The visitor carrying capacity at the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit

The researcher also prepared an open-ended question regarding the appropriate

visitor carrying capacity at the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit. Park staff no.1

proposed that the park could support between 4,000-5,000 visitors per month. Park staff

no.2 found that the number of visitors to the park should be 1,500 per month. Park staff

no.3 agreed with the visitor number of 3,000. Park staff no.4 considered the proper visitor

number of 6,000. Meanwhile, the visitor number proposed by park staff no.5 was similar

to the park staff no. 3.

137

The park staff explained that a long time ago park wastes were collected and

buried on the property. Currently, the park collects garbage and ships it all to the

municipal garbage program in the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat. The park’s personnel

are responsible for sorting before shipping to the city.

Table 72

Waste disposal management in the park

Waste disposal management Number of respondents Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat 4 Municipal garbage system 2 Municipal recycle system 1 Bury on property 0 Free disposal 0 Burn 0 Compost 0 Pit 0 Other 0

n=5 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

Accommodation designs, architectural style and facility in the park

Regarding any construction in the park, the Forestry Department and its

consultant companies in Bangkok are accountable for accommodation designs,

architectural style and facilities. Any building construction will be carefully examined to

prove that it will generate little damage to nature and surroundings. Materials also are

rigorously selected to be compatible with the weather and local cultural needs. The

construction plans, however, are standard to all national park units nationwide.

138

Table 73 displays how the park distributed tourist information and the park’s rules

to visitors. The park had but five ways to do so. Brochure, signs, posting desired behavior

and tourist orientation were commonly administrated in the park. The park also published

the regulations of the park visit in the travel magazines. Additionally, the park staff

explained that currently, the park has a project to publicize tourist information in the form

of exhibitions in seven primary schools per month. The park staff will instruct grade

school students two hours every Thursday and Friday. This project will be evaluated

every month, so that the park staff are able to consider whether or not it can be an

instrument in the environmental protection of the park.

Table 73

Means to provide information about the park and the protected areas to

visitors

Means to provide information Number of respondents Brochures 5 Post desired behavior 5 On spot or before touring 5 Travel magazines 4 Other 1 Internet web site 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

The park staff concluded that wildlife disturbance, walking off the natural trails

and wastes were selected as the inevitable impacts caused by activities in the park (Table

74). Waste, noise, vehicle pollution were brought to the park by tourists. Nevertheless,

139

chemicals like pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers were found in the villagers’

agricultural areas in the park.

Table 74

Park staff’s perceptions of environmental impacts of activities caused by

visitors to the park

Environmental impacts Number of respondents Wildlife disturbance 4 Walking off the natural trails 4 Wastes 4 Noise 3 Pollution caused by the vehicles 3 Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers 3 Other 0

n=3 Note The respondents were able to check any subjects this question. Multiple selections were possible from each respondent.

From the interview survey (Table 75), it was discovered that all park staff had

mutual agreement with the park tourism. Park tourism was an efficient instrument for

environmental conservation so tourists could understand the park’s significance as a

place for knowledge of nature. Visitors could learn about the unknown and unseen

wildlife and appreciate its values. Yet, every activity in the park should be strictly

controlled by the park staff.

140

Table 75

Park staff’s agreement with park tourism

Agreement with park tourism Number of respondents Yes 5 No 0

Total 5 n=5

The park personnel were asked if the park had any collaborative relationship with

the Village of Khiriwong. All park staff agreed that there was a superficial connection

between the park and the village. Their mutual task was a tourist operation. The village

was required to report the number of visitors at any time, if there were visitors traveling

to the park and the Khao Luang peak.

Table 76

Park staff’s collaborative relationship with the Village of Khiriwong

Relationship with the Village of Khiriwong

Number of respondents

Yes 5 No 0

Total 5 n=5

141

Table 77 showed five park staff average incomes. Their income varies with

seniority and position. The researcher interviewed two park rangers, two park chief

assistants and one park chief.

Table 77

Park staff’s average incomes

Park staff incomes per month Number of respondents Between US$201-300 2 Between US$301-400 1 Between US$401-500 1 More than US$501 1 Total 5

n=5

The interviewees were all male (Table 78).

Table 78

Park staff’s gender

Park staff gender Number of respondents Male 5

Female 0 Total 5

n=5

Ideal trips to the Khao Luang National Park

The park staff was asked an open-ended question to provide data about ideal trips

to the park. Two park staff stated that the preferred visitors were the persons who obeyed

the park’s rules. Two park staff proposed that the most beneficial trips to the park were

the trips that distributed knowledge concerning environmental preservation to the

visitors. One park staff mentioned that the best trips to the park were the trips that

142

generated the least environmental impacts on ecosystems. One park staff agreed that the

desirable trips to the park were types of ecotourism, which focused on environmental

conservation.

Furthermore, there was another open-ended question to ask the park staff. How to

enhance more rewarding experiences of the visitors. Three park staff would like to

develop an information center with auditorium, which provides park exhibitions to

visitors. In addition, the park should prepare and provide more guides who are

knowledgeable and fluent in foreign languages. A safety alarm-warning signal should be

installed to alert visitors about any torrential rapids caused by rains and downpours in the

park. One park staff would like to have more clean lavatories for the visitors. More

cabins built and landscaped to the environment should be considered. One park staff

would like visitors to experience more about the park and stay longer so that they could

learn and appreciate the values of the national park. Final open-ended questions relating

to how to mitigate the environmental impact on ecosystems caused by the visitors to the

park were asked of the park staff. One park staff thought that the park should increase the

patrol services to control and confine the tourism area for visitors. Rigid inspections of

tourists were required to prevent illegal poaching. One park staff mentioned more about

the carrying capacity in the park and the confinement of certain protected areas. For

example, the park would allow visitors to travel to only the determined points and the

visitors could not travel beyond. One park staff agreed the wastes and noises were

sometimes inevitable and uncontrollable. The park should pay more attention to that by

warnings to the visitors. Removing wild plants, pebbles or rocks should be prevented.

Any infringement should be enforced with severe punishment. It would, however, be

143

preferred that the visitors visit the park office for information about park rules and

regulations before touring. One park staff yielded an idea of a more effective waste

management system the park should develop. Garbage and wastes were normally seen

along the park attractions like waterfalls, bushes, and walking trails. He added that park

personnel had to persistently provide information about how to behave in the park.

144

The interviews with the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong

(Appendix F)

The interview survey of the residents in the Village of Khiriwong determined

whether sustainable ecotourism would bring economic benefits to the receiving

community without also causing cultural disruption and was demonstrated in the

following subjects:

1. tourism impacts in terms of

1.1 ecology and environment 1.2 economy 1.3 politics 1.4 social life

2. tourism employment;

3. economic benefits from tourism that support the village’s living

and services;

4. the local residents’ involvement in tourism activities;

5. natural resource consumption to support the village tourism;

6. attitude toward the sustainable ecotourism;

7. the local residents’ needs for improving sustainable ecotourism;

8. changes in the way of life after the arrival of tourism;

9. current tourism impacts;

10. collaborative relationship between the Khao Luang National Park

and the Village of Khiriwong;

11. plans and operations favorable to developing the environment and

ecosystems in the village; and

12. income and gender.

145

The researcher interviewed 20 local residents with tourism involvement and

another 20 villagers who had no tourism involvement about the ecological impacts. From

the results shown in Table 79, 11 of 20 villagers with tourism involvement and 14 of 20

villagers without tourism involvement stated that ecological issues appeared after the

arrival of tourism. Littering of trash and garbage along the roadsides, streams, and

waterfalls were the major ecological problems in the village. Walking off the trails also

was detrimental to the native wild plants.

Table 79

Local residents’ perception of ecological aspect

Ecological aspect Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

11 9 20

Without tourism involvement

14 6 20

Total 25 15 40 n=40

Regarding the economic aspect (Table 80), 18 of 20 villagers with tourism

involvement and 10 of 20 villagers without tourism involvement agreed that the

economic issue emerged after the arrival of tourism. They reasoned that tourism created

income and better economy to the village but the benefits were limited to only the

participants in tourism.

146

Table 80

Local residents’ perception of economic aspect

Economic aspect Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

18 2 20

Without tourism involvement

10 10 20

Total 28 12 40 n=40

Related to the political issue (Table 81), four of 20 local residents with tourism

involvement and five out of 20 local residents without tourism involvement mentioned

that the political aspect appeared after the emerging of tourism. The village

administrators significantly took part in the village tourism with the community and

village leaders. At times, certain controversial issues ensued from the village tourism

policies and affected the village’s unity and comprehension.

Table 81

Local resident’s perception of political aspect

Political aspect Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

4 16 20

Without tourism involvement

5 15 20

Total 9 31 40 n=40

147

Concerning the social issue in Table 82, 11 of 20 villagers with tourism

participation, and 11 of 20 local residents without tourism participation replied that social

issues appeared after the coming of tourism. The number of village youth who were

addicted to drugs like Ecstasy and amphetamines, was undeniably increasing. Drugs were

mostly brought to the village by drug users, who traveled to the village as tourists.

Table 82

Local residents’ perception of social aspect

Social aspect Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

11 9 20

Without tourism involvement

11 9 20

Total 22 18 40 n=40

Note From table 79-82. The interviewees were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each interviewee.

As the survey about tourism employment in Table 83 shows, the respondents

reported that there was no increase in tourism employment from outside increasing and

no outsiders traveled to work in the village with the arrival of village tourism. They

reasoned that their family members could share and help do house work for daily life.

Even during the tourist season, they did not need to hire anyone for help. However, there

was some hiring among the villagers for particular jobs.

148

Table 83

Local residents’ perception of employment caused by tourism

No impact on local employment has happened after the advent of tourism

Local residents

yes

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

20 20

Without tourism involvement

20 20

Total 40 40 n=40

From the interview outcome shown in Table 84, 16 of 20 residents with tourism

participation agreed that they could receive benefits from tourism. Likewise, 17 out of 20

villagers without tourism participation could gain advantages from tourism. Forty local

residents were asked if tourism brought about any service and living improvement.

Thirty-three villagers with/without tourism involvement understood that the benefits were

in the form of cash distributed 5-10% from the total revenue of the career groups such as

the Fabric Group, Dessert Group, etc. This amount of money was portioned according to

what the village needed. The village usually used this money for the village’s festivals

and entertainment during the Songkran Day (the Thai’s original New Year or the Water

Festival), the Elderly’s Day, the Children’s Day and the village Sport Day. Moreover, the

village distributed the rest of the money for restoring and extending the roads to the

villagers’ gardens without any assistance from the city or the government.

149

Table 84

Local residents’ perception of tourism benefits to the community

Benefits from tourism that support local community

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

16 4 20

Without tourism involvement

17 3 20

Total 33 7 40 n=40

From the interview survey, Table 85 demonstrated the local residents’

occupations. Sixteen out of 20 villagers with tourism involvement supplied goods and

service. Eleven of them were providing home-stay. Five residents were porters and tourist

assistants. Seven of 20 villagers without tourism involvement took part in providing

goods and services as grocers, food sellers, and pick-up taxi drivers.

Table 85

Local residents’ occupation classification

Supply of goods and services

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

16 4 20

Without tourism involvement

7 13 20

Total 23 17 40 n=40

150

There were three of 20 villagers with tourism involvement taking part in the direct

sale of handcrafts to visitors (Table 86). Three villagers without tourism involvement

participated in selling handicrafts to the markets in town.

Table 86

Local residents’ occupation classification

Sale of handicrafts Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

3 17 20

Without tourism involvement

3 17 20

Total 6 34 40 n=40

Table 87 described the local residents who were involved with traditional

entertainment and activity. Two of 20 villagers with tourism involvement were on the

village tourism staff. Seven of 20 villagers without tourism involvement were two village

guest receptionists, one transportation provider and four community leaders.

Table 87

Local residents’ occupation classification

Traditional entertainment and activity

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

2 18 20

Without tourism involvement

7 13 20

Total 9 31 40 n=40

151

The local residents also identified their additional occupations (Table 88), which

were not only as suppliers of goods and services, sellers of handicrafts, but also

participants in traditional entertainment and activity. All 20 local residents with tourism

involvement were gardeners. Meanwhile, 14 of 20 local villagers without tourism

involvement were gardeners, as well, and, six residents were working as a postman, a

health care staff, a coffee house owner, two primary school teachers and a community

administrator.

Table 88

Local residents’ occupation classification

Other Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

20 0 20

Without tourism involvement

14 6 20

Total 34 6 40 n=40

Note From table 85-88, the interviewees were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each interviewee. There were eight of 20 villagers with tourism involvement supporting water use

and conservation (Table 89). They learned a costly lesson after some villagers used

chemicals to catch fish in the natural streams. They found that when they used stream

water to culture fish in their habitats, all the fish perished. From this, the village

established the rule that no one can use any chemicals to catch fish whatsoever in the

streams. Sixteen out of 20 villagers without tourism involvement also obey this rule.

152

Table 89

Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism

Water use and conservation

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

8 12 20

Without tourism involvement

16 4 20

Total 24 16 40 n=40

Regarding the energy consumption in Table 90, from the survey interview, two

out of 20 villagers with tourism involvement stated that they used the wood from their

gardens for firewood rather than cutting down the trees. Thirty-eight out of 40 of

villagers both with/without tourism involvement did not mention the energy

consumption.

Table 90

Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism

Energy Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

2 18 20

Without tourism involvement

0 20 20

Total 2 38 40 n=40

153

In Table 91, utilizing natural resources by recycling was selected by one of 40

villagers with/without tourism involvement.

Table 91

Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism

Recycling Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

0 20 20

Without tourism involvement

1 19 20

Total 1 39 40 n=40

In Table 92, thirty-three of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement

mentioned that they knew how to utilize natural resources to support the village tourism.

From the interviews, the villagers could cut down trees for building houses, but not for

trading. This was lawfully allowed by the park, if the trees were in their garden areas.

They reasoned they had an unforgettable experience from the mortal deluge and

landslides in 1998. Consequently, forests and trees must be protected. No chemicals like

pesticides, herbicides were used in the village and the garden area anymore.

154

Table 92

Local residents’ perception of utilizing natural resources to support the village tourism

Other Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

16 4 20

Without tourism involvement

17 3 20

Total 33 7 40 n=40

Note From table 78-81, the interviewees were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each interviewee.

All the villagers with/without tourism involvement wholeheartedly accepted that

tourism was an instrument to link their village with the outside world (Table 93).

Table 93

Local residents’ agreement with the village tourism

Agreement with the village tourism

Local residents

yes

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

20 20

Without tourism involvement

20 20

Total 40 40 n=40

Five villagers with/without tourism involvement still would like to possess more

access to goods and services. According to the survey, they reasoned that the village was

155

located about 20 kilometers from the city. That resulted in a commute to the city when

they needed anything. Accordingly, they would like to have more goods and services

established in the village.

Table 94

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Access to goods and services

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

2 18 20

Without tourism involvement

3 17 20

Total 5 35 40 n=40

In Table 95, twenty-four of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement desired

to have quality and standard access to health care. Actually, they had one public health

clinic in the village with one patient bed. There were one clinic staff and one assistant for

a 24 hour-service. The services were limited to the medical treatment. However, first aid

kits were available. The villagers found that just one health clinic in the village was not

adequate for them. So, they would like to have a standard physician and nurse available

at least one day per week.

156

Table 95

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Quality access to health care

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

11 9 20

Without tourism involvement

13 7 20

Total 24 16 40 n=40

In reality, there was only one grade school with junior high level in the Village of

Khiriwong. After graduating from the junior high level, students had to continue their

education in the city or other places far away from their homes. Thirty-one of 40 villages

with/without tourism involvement realized that higher education like community college

was required in the village so that their children need not travel far for schools in the city

or anywhere else. The villagers added that they would not feel concerned about their

children’s transportation back and forth from the village to schools and from schools to

the village everyday and significantly, the villagers could keep their eyes on their

children if they were jeopardized by drugs and unwanted culture from outside. Moreover,

community colleges or schools could be places the villagers themselves could learn more

after work.

157

Table 96

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Education Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

15 5 20

Without tourism involvement

16 4 20

Total 31 9 40 n=40

Twenty-eight of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement considered the

communication infrastructure important to better their lives. They defined

“communication infrastructure” as “telephone services,” rather than postal service. From

the survey, there were four public telephones, which the villagers could call domestic and

nationwide. Yet, the demand was greater than the supply. They reasoned that telephones

were their convenient bridges to link the village and the societies outside within a short

time and less costs.

Table 97

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Communication infrastructure

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

14 6 20

Without tourism involvement

14 6 20

Total 28 12 40 n=40

158

Years ago, the best way to get to the village was by tractors but in the rainy

season, walking through eight kilometers or five miles was the best mode of

transportation in the village. During the survey, the researcher discovered that there was

one way to get to the village from the main road. Eighteen of 40 with/without tourism

involvement replied that quality roads were needed in the village for their fruit product

transportation and for their transportation. It was found that the road that the villagers

were using was sponsored by the Tourism Authority of Thailand to promote the village

tourism. The road condition was fine, but partly bumpy.

Table 98

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Transportation infrastructure

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

9 11 20

Without tourism involvement

9 11 20

Total 18 22 40 n=40

Six of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement stated that they would like

to have a community product center established in the village. This community product

center would be a place similar to the main village grocery store where they could sell

their works and purchase their needs.

159

Table 99

Local residents’ perception of needs to support the village tourism

Other Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

4 16 20

Without tourism involvement

2 18 20

Total 6 34 40 n=40

Note From Table 94-99, the interviewees were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each interviewee.

In Table 100, 13 of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement founded that

they could support their children to go to school by the income from selling their local

goods or providing home-stay for visitors. Five villagers without tourism participation

earned income by selling their products to the villagers with tourism involvement.

Therefore, the income also could afford the tuition and fees for their children.

Table 100

Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

Gaining better education Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

8 12 20

Without tourism involvement

5 15 20

Total 13 27 40 n=40

160

Eighteen out of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement discovered that

after the arrival of tourism, they had access to more public utilities. Two main roads in

the village were funded and constructed by the Tourism Authority of Thailand for the

village tourism promotion. These villagers stated that they had higher living standards

from using the roads, even though they were for tourism.

Table 101

Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

Gaining better living Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

10 10 20

Without tourism involvement

8 12 20

Total 18 22 40 n=40

161

In Table 102, twenty-five of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement

gained more income after the village tourism was established. They stated that tourism

generated income was not the primary revenue for their families, but a secondary source

of money. Moreover, they could subsist regardless of their revenue from tourism.

Table 102

Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

Gaining more income Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

15 5 20

Without tourism involvement

10 10 20

Total 25 15 40 n=40

Thirteen of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement added their own

opinions toward village tourism. Two villagers with tourism involvement found that

tourism related works were their second jobs, if their products were not plentiful in a

certain year. Eight villagers with/without tourism involvement discovered their guests to

the village were new friends at the same time. So, the villagers could exchange and share

attitudes, life, etc. with one another. The villagers stated that friends unveiled the new and

unknown corners of the earth. Two villagers with/without tourism participation realized

that after the advent of tourism in the village, they needed to take care of their

surroundings and keep their homes clean and inviting. Nevertheless, there was only one

villager without tourism involvement, who stated that tourism had no impact on his life.

162

Table 103

Local residents’ perception of changes derived from the village tourism

Other Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

5 15 20

Without tourism involvement

8 12 20

Total 13 27 40 n=40

Note From Table 100-103, the interviewees were able to check any subjects in this question. Multiple selections were possible from each interviewee.

There were four villagers with/without tourism involvement who found that the

village tourism generated cultural changes in the village. From the interview, the villagers

mentioned that currently, the urban culture and the tourists easily influenced their new

generations. Typical and traditional dresses were seldom seen in the village, only in the

village festivals.

Table 104

Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village tourism

Local culture has been altered

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

2 18 20

Without tourism involvement

2 18 20

Total 4 36 40 n=40

163

In Table 105, 10 out of 30 villagers with/without tourism involvement ascertained

that their lifestyle has been altered after the emergence of tourism. They reasoned that the

village tourism annoyed their routine life. Tourist buses, coaches and other vehicles

parked unsystematically. When visitors walked along the way to see the villagers’ agro-

forests, at the same time the villagers were conveying their agricultural products, the

villagers had to be more vigilant in spotting tourists. It was reported that tourism resulted

in ordinary villagers becoming local guides, who had to learn more about the village and

the park. They, however, were willing to do so.

Table 105

Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village tourism

Lifestyle has been changed Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

4 16 20

Without tourism involvement

6 14 20

Total 10 30 40 n=40

Thirty-two out of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement agreed that the

village tourism explicitly caused an increasing in garbage and wastes. Plastic bags,

beverage cans, styrofoam containers, bottles and so on were regularly seen in the

village’s attractions, along the streams, waterfalls, and the pathways to gardens.

164

Table 106

Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village tourism

Increased garbage and wastes

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

16 4 20

Without tourism involvement

16 4 20

Total 32 8 40 n=40

Table 107 showed the tourism impact in increment of demand on local resources.

Six out of 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement stated that there were sales of

wild plants to visitors. Some brought up the topic of water shortage especially in the dry

but also in the tourism season. The interviewees stated that water uses increased during

this period. Water was normally taken from natural streams through viaducts and used for

agriculture and households.

Table 107

Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village tourism

Increased demand on local resources

Local residents

yes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

2 18 20

Without tourism involvement

4 16 20

Total 6 34 40 n=40

165

Six of 40 villagers with/without tourism participation provided additional ideas of

the tourism impacts caused by the village tourism. The interviewees stated that tourists

sometimes brought undesirable behavior to the village. Some tourists came to the village

to use drugs because the agro-forests and gardens were the expedient havens for the

tourist drug users. Moreover, the outsiders traveled to the village with another purpose.

For example, they had parties with alcoholic beverage, karaoke and made annoying

noises for the villagers and other travelers.

Table 108

Local residents’ perception of adverse impacts caused by the village tourism

Other Local residentsyes no

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

4 16 20

Without tourism involvement

2 18 20

Total 6 34 40 n=40

All 40 villagers with/without tourism involvement knew that there was a

collaborative relationship between the village and the Khao Luang National Park. They

explained that at any time the villagers had trekking tours to the peak of Khao Luang,

they were required to inform the number and ask permission from the park staff before

touring. They also realized that the fees collected from the visitors were periodically

portioned to the park.

166

Table 109

Local residents’ perception of the collaborative relationship in tourism between the

village and the park

Collaborative relationship between the village and the

park

Local residents

yes

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

20

20

Without tourism involvement

20 20

Total 40 40 n=40

From the interview survey, the researcher categorized the villagers’ average

income from less than US$ 100 to between US$ 401 to US$ 500. Seventeen of 20

villagers with tourism involvement received less than US$ 100 per month. Meanwhile

seven of 20 villagers without tourism involvement gained less than US$ 100 per month.

Two villagers with tourism involvement gained between US$ 101 to US$ 200 per month,

but eight villagers without tourism involvement received US$ 101 to US$ 200 per month.

Moreover, there were two villagers without tourism involvement who received from US$

401 to US$ 500 per month.

167

Table 110

Local residents’ average income

Income per month (US$)

Local residents

Less than 100

101- 200 201-300 301-400 401-500

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

17 2 0 1 0 20

Without tourism involvement

7 8 2 1 2 20

Total 24 10 2 2 2 40 n=40

From the interview survey, the total number of the villagers was 40. The villagers

with tourism participation were 11 male and nine female interviewees. The villagers

without tourism involvement were 14 male and six female interviewees.

Table 111

Local residents’ gender

Gender Local residentsMale Female

Number of respondents

With tourism involvement

11 9 20

Without tourism involvement

14 6 20

Total 25 15 40 n=40

168

Plans and operations favorable to developing the environment and ecosystems in the

village

The interview survey showed that the Village of Khiriwong has long had policies

on ecosystem protection and preservation before the arrival of tourism. The village and

community leaders including the villagers have reciprocal understanding about the value

of natural resources. Main policies to support environment and ecosystems in the Village

of Khiriwong were described in the following activities.

1. No deforestation

2. No herbicide allowed in the village and vicinity

3. No removing wild plants

4. Preserve aquatic animals such as rare fresh water fish

5. Preserve natural water resources

6. Reforest an area which has been deforested

7. Keep roadsides clean and safe

8. The village has set the tourism rules and regulations for tourists’ desired

behavior. The village meeting was held with village leaders and local residents every

month. The outcomes and conclusions were reported to the entire community by loud-

speakers which were installed all over the village area.

Conclusions

Visitors to the Village of Khiriwong

Natural landscapes and environment were the main factors to draw visitors to the

Village of Khiriwong. During the stay, the hospitality of the villagers became the

169

visitors’ primary preference. The biggest obstacle of visitors to get to the village was the

inconvenient contact for village information. Printed materials like books, postcards and

pictures of the village were brought to visitors’ attention to have available as souvenirs in

the village. The telecommunications like local and long distance telephones were the

services visitors would like to have available in the village. Visitors’ expectation to travel

to the village was to be close to nature. The sustainable ecotourism element described as

tourism that supported and sustained local ecosystems, and tourism which encouraged

guests to be concerned about, and protective of the host community and environment

were selected to portray the best feature of the Khiriwong Village’s tourism. Local guides

were friendly to visitors. Most visitors traveled to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat by

train and then by car to the Village of Khiriwong. The average length of stay in the

village was three to five days. Most visitors stayed with local host families. During the

survey, travel parties to the village comprised 15-60 visitors. Most visitors were students

ages 20-29 who were recommended to travel to the park by their schoolteachers, the

Tourism Authority of Thailand and some knew the village by documentary programs on

television and travel magazines. Most visitors were from the central part of the country

including Bangkok. The visitors’ average income was less than US$ 100 per month.

Visitors had very satisfactory experiences and would travel back to the village again.

Visitors to the Khao Luang National Park

Most visitors to the Khao Luang National Park were captivated by mountains.

Natural beauty, waterfalls and streams were their preferences after visiting the park.

Books and other printed materials like postcards and pictures were selected by visitors as

170

souvenirs in the park. Local and long distance telephones were the service visitors would

like to have available when staying in the park. Visitors’ motivation to the park was to be

close to nature. Visitors believed that the park tourism was tourism which encouraged

guests to be concerned about, and protective of the host community and environment, and

tourism which supported and sustained local ecosystems. Visitors experienced that the

park used guides native to visited areas and local guides were friendly to them. Main

transportation of visitors to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat was by car and then by car

to travel to the park. The average length of stay was three-five days. Most visitors pitched

camps and set up their tents in the park. Most travel parties constituted up to eight

visitors. Friends were source of information to most visitors to the park. During the

survey, most visitors were from the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat and most of them

were government service officials. The visitors’ average income was between US$ 301-

400 per month. Most visitors were between 30-39 years old of age. Most visitors had

very satisfactory traveling experience to the park and would revisit.

The interview with experts in Biology and Ecology

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong

Modes of transportation like off-road, four-wheel vehicle and walk were

recommended to travel to the village. The visitor carrying capacity of 20-100 visitors per

day in the village was advised. Waste disposal management in the village by the

municipal garbage system and municipal recycle garbage system were preferred by the

experts. Homes and cottages were the most suitable accommodation for visitors. Posting

desired behavior was the preferred way to inform tourists while staying in the village.

The experts believed that environmental impacts caused by tourism activities in the

171

village included wildlife disturbance, pollution from vehicles and wastes. Tourism

activities in the Village of Khiriwong were accepted by the experts. The experts believed

that ideal trips to the village should be tourism that caused no harm to the village and the

surroundings, caused no disturbance to the village’s way of life and tourism for visitors to

learn and value the village’s way of life.

Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit

The preferred mode of transportation to the park was by walking. The proper

visitor carrying capacity of the park was between 3,000-4,000 per month. For waste

disposal management, the park should classify and then ship it to be eradicated in the

City of Nakhon Si Thammarat. It was recommended that visitors put up tents or pitch

camps while staying in the park. The park should provide information of desired behavior

for visitors by posting or informing visitors on the spot or before touring. In addition,

distributing brochures to visitors was another recommended way. Experts’ perception of

the most significant environmental impacts of tourism activities in the park included

wildlife disturbance. All experts agreed with park tourism in the Khao Luang National

Park and decided that ideal trips to the park should be tourism that caused no harm to

nature and ecosystems, tourism so visitors could learn the values of ecosystems and

environment, and tourism that caused no harm to wildlife.

172

The interview with the Khao Luang National Park staff, at Karom Unit

The regular mode of transportation to the park was by walking and pick-up cars.

The visitor carrying capacity to the park varied from 1,500 to 6,000 per month. The park

managed waste disposal by shipping it to be eradicated in the City of Nakhon Si

Thammarat. For visitor information about the desired behavior while traveling in the

park, the park distributed information through brochures, posting, informing visitors on

the spot and before touring. Regarding the environmental impacts caused by park tourism

activities, wildlife disturbance, walking off the natural trails and wastes were among the

critical problems. However, the park staff believed that park tourism was an appropriate

and effective means to natural conservation. The park had collaborative relationship in

tourism with the Village of Khiriwong.

The interviews with the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong

After the arrival of tourism, the local residents perceived the increase of wastes

and garbage in the Village of Khiriwong. The village tourism brought benefits and

income to most local residents who have tourism involvement. The village administrators

and community leaders significantly took part in the village tourism policies. However,

sometimes controversial issues concerning tourism benefits happened and were

impending. Drugs were brought to the village by tourists and became the critical problem

of the village youth. There was no increment of tourism employment in the village. The

local residents’ family members were able to share and work jointly. Yet, there were

certain employments among the local residents during and out of tourism season. Local

residents perceived that tourism brought benefits to their community. Most local residents

173

in the village were orchard gardeners and farmers. Water use and conservation was the

most important subject among the local residents in the village. The local residents

with/without tourism involvement agreed with the village tourism and they needed more

education like schools, to support the village tourism. They experienced that tourism

explicitly brought income and better living to the village. They agreed that there was a

collaborative relationship in tourism between the village and the Khao Luang National

Park. Seventeen out of 20 local residents with tourism involvement received less than

US$ 100 per month. Whereas, seven of 20 local residents without tourism involvement

gained less than US$ 100 per month.

The final chapter provides a summary of the findings of this study. It also

contains the recommendations for the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National

Park research to sustain ecotourism and become the least impacted tourism attractions.

Additionally, the recommendations for future research are presented by the author. As

mentioned in the chapter of literature review, the study of sustainable ecotourism in

Thailand was restricted by the limited number of resources on this subject.

174

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This final chapter entails a summary of the quintessential findings of this study.

According to the objectives, recommendations for sustainable ecotourism in the Village

of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park are generated. Furthermore, the

researcher also provides perspectives and recommendations for the future study.

Restatement of problem and research objectives:

The Village of Khiriwong is a scenic community in the area of the Khao Luang

National Park of southern Thailand. Visitors travel to the village to view the local way of

life, and agricultural activities and to the park because of its abundant natural resources.

These places became the researcher’s focus in examining if tourism can become an

effective instrument in sustaining the village’s way of life and natural resources.

Furthermore, whether visitors to the village and the park can enjoy their visits, and if the

host community and the park are culturally and environmentally impacted by tourism

activities.

2. to determine whether sustainable ecotourism contributes environmental

conservation; and

The study had the following fundamental objectives:

1. to determine whether sustainable ecotourism provides the tourists with a

rewarding experience;

175

3. to determine whether sustainable ecotourism distributes economic benefits

to the receiving community without also causing cultural disruption.

Summary of methodology

Questionnaires and interview questions were prepared and employed as the

fundamental data collection instrument for this study. Two types of questionnaires were

separately distributed to the visitors traveling to the village and the tourists to the national

park. Four distinctive sets of interview questions were used in the study; two for the

experts in Biology and Ecology, one for the national park staff, and the last one used for

the local residents. According to the objective concerning whether the sustainable

ecotourism contributes the rewarding experience to the visitors to the village and the

national park, the subjects were visitors to Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park during September 6th – November 6th, 2000. In addition, the researcher also

administered a mailed survey to the visitors who visited the village and park during 1997-

99. Experts in Biology and Ecology were asked in person during the survey period to

share their perceptions and suggestions of the sustainable ecotourism in the village and

the park. Park staff at the Khao Luang National Park were interviewed in person to

provide their perceptions and recommendations of park tourism during the survey period.

Local residents, with and without tourism involvement, were selected and asked in person

to convey their perceptions and suggestions of village tourism during the survey.

176

Discussion of significant findings:

This section involved a summary of the critical findings of this study. The

findings were discussed based on the objectives of study.

Objective 1 To determine whether sustainable ecotourism provides the tourists with a

rewarding experience

Visitors to the Village of Khiriwong

There were 87 survey respondents who visited the Village of Khiriwong during

the on-site survey and from the mailed questionnaire survey. Natural landscapes and

environment were the main factor to draw visitors to the Village of Khiriwong. During

the stay, the hospitality of villagers became the visitors’ favorite experience. Those

results were in keeping with Scheyvens’ (1999) findings that ecotourism was the activity

that could relate to both cultural and environmental tourism. The obstacle of visitors to

get to the village was the inconvenient contact for village information. Printed materials

like books, postcards and pictures of the village were brought to visitors’ attention to

have available for sale as souvenirs in the village. The telecommunications, like local and

long distance telephones, were the services visitors would like to have available in the

village. This need was in contrast to Boo’s (1990) notion that nature tourists did not

anticipate lodging accommodation, food, or nightlife that corresponded to the standards

of comfort or luxury. Visitors’ desire to travel to the village was to be close to nature.

The sustainable ecotourism element described as tourism that supported and sustained

local ecosystems, and tourism which encouraged guests to be concerned about, and

protective of the host community and environment were selected to portray the best

177

feature of the Khiriwong Village’s tourism. Local guides were friendly to visitors. Most

visitors traveled to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat by train and then by car to the

Village of Khiriwong. The average length of stay in the village was three to five days.

Most visitors stayed with local host families. During the survey, travel parties to the

village comprised 15-60 visitors. Most visitors were students ages 20-29 years, who were

encouraged to travel to the park by their schoolteachers, the Tourism Authority of

Thailand, and by documentary television programs and travel writers. Most visitors were

from the central part of the country, including Bangkok. The visitors’ average income

was less than US$ 100 per month. This study revealed that most visitors to the village

were students who had financial support from their parents. Visitors had a very

satisfactory experience and would return to the village. This supported the previous study

of Pedersen (1991) that, ecotourism offered a pleasant experience in nature, a requisite

for successful ecotourism.

As previously stated in Chapter 1, the village was well-known for its agricultural

products such as fresh fruits from gardens, the survey outcome demonstrated the visitors’

motivation to travel to the village was exposure to natural landscapes and environment

rather than fruit cultivation and consumption. This was the result of the rainy season and

it was not the season for harvesting. Students were a possible target market segment for

the village tourism in the low tourism season. So, this finding should urge the villagers to

study the potential promotion plan for retaining this market segment and attracting more

tourists to the village in the low tourism season.

178

Visitors to the Khao Luang National Park

There were 56 respondents from visitors who visited the Khao Luang National

Park during the on-site survey and from the mailed questionnaire survey. Most visitors to

the Khao Luang National Park were captivated by mountains. Natural beauty, waterfalls

and streams were their main preferences after visiting the park. From these results, they

championed the concept of Epler Wood, Gatz and Lindberg (1991) that, the intention of

travel to the natural areas was to discern the culture and the natural background of the

surroundings. Books and other printed materials like postcards and pictures were selected

by visitors as souvenirs of the park. Local and long distance telephones were the service

visitors would like to have available when staying in the park. Visitors’ motivation to the

park was to be close to the nature. Visitors believed that the park tourism was tourism

which encouraged guests to be concerned about, and protection of the host community

and environment, and tourism which supported and sustained local ecosystems. Visitors

learned that the park used guides native to visited areas and local guides were friendly to

them. Main transportation of visitors to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat was by car and

then by car to travel to the park. The average length of stay was three-five days. Most

visitors pitched camps or set up their tents while staying in the park. Most travel parties

constituted up to eight visitors. Friends were source of information to most visitors to the

park. During the survey, most visitors were from the province of Nakhon Si Thammarat

and most of them were government service officials. The visitors’ average income was

between US$ 301-400 per month. Most visitors were between 30-39 years old of age.

For the average stay, number of party to the village and visitors’ age, its results endorsed

the previous study of Chudintra (1993) that, most park visitors were Thai people, who

179

were prone to be young persons traveling in large groups during a short period of time.

Most visitors had very satisfactory traveling experience to the park and would revisit.

Tourism in the Village of Khiriwong

Objective 2 To determine whether sustainable ecotourism contributes to environmental

conservation

The interview with experts in Biology and Ecology

Modes of transportation like off-road, four-wheel car and walk were

recommended to travel to the village. The visitor carrying capacity of 20-100 visitors per

day in the village was advised by the scientists. Waste disposal management in the

village by the municipal garbage system and municipal recycle garbage system were

preferred by the experts. Homes and cottages were the most suitable accommodations for

visitors. Posting desired behaviors was the preferred way to inform tourists while staying

in the village. The experts believed that environmental impacts caused by tourism

activities in the village included wildlife disturbance, pollution from vehicles and wastes.

Tourism activities in the Village of Khiriwong were accepted by the experts. The experts

believed that the ideal trips to the village should be tourism that caused no harm to the

village and the surroundings, caused no disturbance to the village’s way of life and

should be tourism so visitors could learn and value the village’s way of life.

180

Tourism in the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit

The preferred mode of transportation to the park was by walking. The proper

visitor carrying capacity for the park was between 3,000-4,000 visitors per month. For

waste disposal management, the park should classify and then ship it to be eradicated in

the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat. It was recommended that visitors put up tents or pitch

camps while staying in the park. The park should provide information of desired

behaviors for visitors by posting or informing visitors on the spot or before touring. In

addition, distributing brochures to visitors was another recommended medium. Experts’

perception of the most significant environmental impacts of tourism activities in the park

included wildlife disturbance. All experts agreed with park tourism in the Khao Luang

National Park and discovered that the ideal trips to the park should be tourism that caused

no harm to the nature and ecosystems, tourism so visitors could learn the values of

ecosystems and environment, and tourism that caused no harm to wildlife.

The interview with the Khao Luang National Park staff, at Karom Unit

The regular mode of transportation to the park was by walking and pick-up trucks.

Staff estimates for ideal park carrying capacity varied from 1,500 to 6,000 visitors per

month. The park managed waste disposal by shipping it to be eradicated in the City of

Nakhon Si Thammarat. For visitor information about the desired behaviors while

traveling in the park, the park distributed information through brochures, posting,

informing visitors on the spot and before touring. Regarding the environmental impacts

caused by park tourism activities, wildlife disturbance, walking off the natural trails and

wastes were among the critical problems. The park staff, however, believed that park

181

tourism was an appropriate and effective means to promote natural conservation. The

park had collaborative relationship in tourism with the Village of Khiriwong.

Objective 3 To determine whether sustainable ecotourism distributes economic

benefits to the receiving community without also causing cultural disruption

The interview with the local residents in the Village of Khiriwong

After the arrival of tourism, the local residents perceived the increase of wastes

and garbage in the Village of Khiriwong. The village tourism brought benefits and

income to most local residents who have tourism involvement. The village administrators

and community leaders significantly took part in the village tourism policies. Drugs were

brought to the village by tourists and became the critical problem of the village youth.

There was no increase of tourism employment in the village. The local residents’ family

members were able to share and work jointly. Yet, there were certain employment

opportunities among the local residents during and out of tourism season. Local residents

perceived that tourism brought benefits to their community. Most local residents in the

village were orchard gardeners and farmers. This outcome supported Wallace and Pearce

(1996) who believed that ecotourism had economic and other benefits to local residents

that complemented rather than replaced traditional practices. Water use and conservation

was the most important subject among the local residents in the village. The local

residents with/without tourism involvement agreed with the village tourism and they

needed more education like schools, to support the village tourism. They believed that

tourism brought increased income and better living such as roads to the village. This

supported Coccossis’ (1996) statement that the effects of tourism might also be favorable.

182

Local residents have the advantage of access to upgraded infrastructure and services,

which improve quality of life. They agreed that there was a collaborative relationship in

tourism between the village and the Khao Luang National Park. This relationship

supported Lindberg’s (1991) statement that a national nature tourism board would be

useful with representatives from parks, tourism and other private tourism industry for

emphasizing nature tourism. Seventeen of 20 local residents with tourism involvement

earned less than US$ 100 per month. Whereas, seven of 20 local residents without

tourism involvement earned less than US$ 100 per month. Scheyvens (1999) stated that it

was hard to accept that all community members possess equal importance and the same

right including opportunities in life with mutual targets. In the case of the Khiriwong

Village’s tourism, there were a limited number of families able to host visitors. The other

families had to wait for their turn at tourism involvement. Moreover, because of the

tourism seasons, they were unfortunately not able to have home-stay year round. This

resulted in a lowered average income. From the interview survey, it showed that the

Village of Khiriwong had long made policies on ecosystem protection and preservation

before the arrival of tourism. The village and community leaders including the villagers

have a reciprocal understanding about the value of natural resources. This related to the

suggestion of Wallace and Pearce (1996) that ecotourism maximized the early and long-

term participation of local residents in the decision-making possess that determined the

kind and amount of tourism that should occur. The village’s policies on environment

supported Cater’s (1993) comprehension that a community-based access to ecotourism

realized that need to enhance both quality of life of local residents and the conservation

of resources.

183

Conclusions

The Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park have a significant

amount of domestic tourism. These examples of community-based tourism and national

park tourism have become a vital source of Thailand’s pride and a concentration on

domestic tourism mirrors a growing interest in environmental, social and cultural issues

and conservation of the country’ unique ecological endowments. However, significant

findings of environmental and social changes caused by the village and park tourism

were discovered by the researcher. Examples of tourism activities included wildlife

disturbance, walking off the natural trails and wastes were the most severe problems

found in the national park. Drugs brought by the visitors to the village became a major

social problem. Wastes and trash were obviously seen along the village’s attractions and

roadsides. According to the domestic tourism campaign made by the Thai government,

the number of Thais visiting the Khao Luang National Park increased from about 230,330

in 1992 to over 968,000 in 1997. If the community-based and park tourism is to form a

sustainable economic foundation for the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang

National Park, careful planning is imperative to retain the development procedure

controlled by the village and the park, with the consultation of other stakeholders, like the

Tourism Authority of Thailand, and the Department of Forestry.

Sustainable ecotourism can provide an alternative economic foundation, but it

does not occur automatically, or without social and environmental impacts. If it is to be

sustainable, local residents must be allowed to capture, more or less, a significant amount

of the economic multipliers generated by tourism. Successful sustainable ecotourism

requires local participation in development planning and outside assistance with the

184

provision of necessary infrastructure, training and ability. Community involvement is

also essential for examining adverse impacts on local residents who live in areas

undergoing sustainable ecotourism development. In the Village of Khiriwong, the village

community leaders have begun to promote community-based sustainable ecotourism

initiatives and established the official visitor center in October 2000.

1. It is suggested that residents in the Village of Khiriwong study potential ways

of efficient communication between the village and the prospective visitors.

Visitors demand better tourism promotional and information systems.

Recommendations for the Village of Khiriwong

The significant findings of this research resulted in the following

recommendations for the local residents and community leaders in the Village of

Khiriwong.

2. During the low tourism season or the rainy season, to attract more prospective

visitors to the village and the park. It is advised that the village residents study

the probability of increasing tourism activities to extend the visitors’ average

stay. Buddhist events like Buddhist Rent or Buddhist Rains Retreat, Chak Pra

Festival (Pulling Buddha Image Festival) can be an instrument for village

tourism promotion. Food festivals and local folkdances are strongly

recommended by the researcher to attract more visitors in this season.

3. From the survey results about transportation to the village, it is suggested that

the village provide more directional signs installed along the roadsides and a

village map to visitors for their improved safety and convenience.

185

4. According to the visitors’ experiences, it is believed that the village residents

should consider the possibility of maintaining and preserving the remaining

original house styles, which are very captivating to visitors.

5. Regarding the pricing of village and park tourism activities and attractions,

tourism operators should revise the village’s pricing, the findings suggest the

village should revise the pricing structure and update in an explicit manner.

The survey results implied that the cost of village and park tourism were

rather considerable for visitors. The village residents may create village and

park tourism promotion by offering half-price deals, including food and lodge

for another day of stay after the fifth day of stay. Student rate is preferred by

the researcher for the potential student market segment with budget trips.

Proper discounts on the price of meals and lodge for visitor parties more than

10 people could be provided by the residents.

6. It would be useful to collect visitors’ general information, for the future

survey research, if the village is able to systematically record the visitors’

tourism intentions and characteristics at registration. This will assist the

village in realizing the visitor numbers each year and to plan properly in

advance for village tourism plan and promotion during the high and low

tourism season.

7. The survey results encouraged the notion that the village should establish a

particular visitor information center to assist the newly arrived visitors. This

will enhance the visitors’ first impression and confidence.

186

8. If tourism is to promote community development in the Village of Khiriwong,

it should concentrate on expanding, improving and promoting locally owned

facilities and services. In 2000, a few private lodging accommodations like

resorts were established by the local residents to accommodate visitors,

indicating that village tourism was beginning to generate some local economic

benefits but for only a group of investors. This resulted in the unbalanced

economic benefits to other local residents who host visitors. The researcher

suggests that the community leader, local residents and the investors discuss

the possibility of allotting the tourism benefits. Otherwise, this controversial

issue will become a chronic conflict.

9. Because of the mutual boundaries of the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park, it is suggested that the village and the park discuss the

village and park tourism periodically, so that the village and the park can

understand impending or future tourism problems and solutions.

10. This study also reviewed a variety of environmental impacts caused by the

village and park tourism activities. Wastes and trash became the most

conspicuous problem in the village. As a result of this, it is suggested that the

village residents design certain measures to improve the village’s

surroundings. Warning signs of “No Littering” or “Please keep clean as you

do at home” are recommended by the researcher to remind visitors. It would

be more helpful if the village residents could provide and install more

trashcans, which are landscaped to the surroundings along the attractions and

roadsides. Penalties such as a fine should be given to visitors who violate or

187

disobey the village’s agreement. A non-profit organization like Green Leaf in

Thailand, which is favorable to the natural conservation and cultural

sustainability is also recommended by the researcher to supervise and evaluate

the village and park tourism practices.

11. From the survey, the community leader manages volunteers on a 24-hour

patrol for rigid prevention and protection from drugs, which may be brought

into the village by visitors or even the villagers. Volunteers can ask

permission from visitors, strangers or even villagers for inspection. If found

guilty of holding drugs or any additives, the volunteers will report it to the

community leader for investigation and then notify the police. The researcher

believes that this method is highly effective for minimizing a drug invasion to

the villagers or other tourists.

Recommendations for the Khao Luang National Park, at Karom Unit

The significant findings of this research resulted in the following

recommendations for the Khao Luang National Park.

1. The survey disclosed that visitors to the park encountered some difficulties

about directions and especially, dangerous situations. It is advised that the

park provide more warning signs installed at specific danger spots in the park

area.

2. The results revealed that the park exhibition at the Khao Luang National Park

was rated almost the least enjoyable of visitors’ expectations and preferences.

This is an indicator to help the park staff consider how to improve information

188

distribution. Perhaps, the slideshows of indigenous wildlife and other park’s

features for visitors before the park tour are a practical instrument.

3. During the survey period, there were some foreign tourists visiting the park.

They provided the idea that they had some communication deterrents with the

park staff. It is suggested that the park provide tour guides or receptionists

who are able to provide information in English or any other foreign languages

like German and Japanese. Brochures or booklet in those languages are also

useful instruments to offer more rewarding experiences to those visitors.

4. During the low tourism season or the rainy season, to attract more prospective

visitors to the Khao Luang National Park, it is advised that the park staff study

the probability of increasing park tourism activities and extending the visitors’

average stay. Park exhibitions and displays including auditorium, pictures of

wildlife and knowledgeable park staff are recommended by the researcher to

create more visitors’ experiences during the rainy season. The park might

provide park tour programs during this time such as “Let’s observe nocturnal

animals ” or “Explore the rainy season’s native plants”, which thrive or bloom

in the rainy season. The park may arrange and landscape the venue similar to

the real jungle and keep those examples of living native wildlife. Prospective

visitors can value the natural resources and learn more of what they have

never seen or discerned only from the pictures.

5. Because of the mutual boundaries of the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao

Luang National Park, it is suggested that the village residents and the park

189

staff discuss the village and park tourism periodically so that the village and

the park can understand impending or future tourism problems and solutions.

6. Based upon the survey outcomes, wildlife disturbance, walking off the natural

trails and wastes emerged as the most critical effects from park tourism

activities. The researcher believes that from the increasing number of visitors

to the park during 1992-1999, tourism development in the future will be more

sensitive to its ecological impacts, and will highlight nature-based

experiences. Whereas, the park visitor carrying capacity has been suggested

by the park staff, the researcher imagines that the environmental impacts

caused by the visitors cannot be easily dismissed. The park should study the

limits of acceptable change, which enables the park staff to think about

acceptable levels of impacts and how to deal with them.

Recommendations for future study

Based on the limited resources on this sustainable ecotourism research topic, the

researcher strongly recommends future research and more study. The recommendations

for future research are as follows:

1. Future research should emphasize the village and park tourism in the dry

season. This study was conducted in Thailand by the researcher during the

rainy season, which meant the low tourism season of the study sites. Rainy

season influences local residents’ traditional culture and behaviors. Major

Buddhist events and temple activities are often held during this time.

Consequently, the researcher believed that the information collected from a

190

small number of respondents who traveled to the village and park in this

season for data analysis might be different from research findings during the

high tourism season.

2. There are other community-based ecotourism sites in Thailand like the Village

of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park. It would be interesting to

administer comparative surveys in those places. The researcher is confident

that the information from each study area will provide various insights and

understandings for future and reciprocal sustainable ecotourism.

191

REFERENCES

Bernard, J. (1973). The Sociology of community. In C.M. Hall & A.A. Lew

(Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 35-48). New York:

Addison Wesley Longman.

Boo, E. (1990). Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Washington, DC: World

Wildlife Fund.

Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues.

Environment Department Papers No. 033, Washington DC: World Bank.

Britton, S.G. (1982). The political economy of tourism in the Third World.

Annals of Tourism Research, 9(3), 331-358.

Britton, S.G. (1991). Tourism, capital and place: towards a critical geography of

tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,9, 451-478.

Butler, R.W. (1980). The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications

for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24(1), 5-12.

Butler, R.W. (1990). Alternative tourism: Pious hope or Trojan horse? Journal of

Travel Research, 28 (3), 40-45.

Butler, R.W. (1992). Alternative tourism: The thin edge of the wedge. In V.L.

Smith and W.R. Eadington (Eds.), Tourism Alternative: Potentials and Problems in the

Development of Tourism (pp. 31-46), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cater, E.A. (1993). Ecotourism in the third world: problems for sustainable

development. Tourism Management, 14(2), 85-90.

192

Cater, E.A., & Lowman, G. (Eds.). (1994). Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?.

Chichester, UK: John Wisley & Sons.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1987). Estudio de Prefactibilidad Socioeconomica del

Turismo Ecologico y Anteproyecto Arguitectonico y Urbanistico del Centro de Turismo

Ecologico de Sian Ka’an, Quintana Roo. Mexico: SEDUE.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996). Tourism, ecotourism and protected areas. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN (World Conservation Union).

Chudintra, S. (1993). Nature tourism profile: Thailand. In Nenon, J., & P. Durst

(Eds.), Nature Tourism in Asia: Opportunities and Constraints for Conservation and

Economic Development. (pp. 31-41) Washington, DC: Forestry Support Program.

Coccossis, H. (1996). Tourism and Sustainability: Perspectives and Implications.

In G.K. Priestley, J.A. Edwards., & H. Coccossis (Eds.), Sustainable tourism? European

Experiences (pp. 1-21). UK: Biddles Ltd.

Cochrane, J. (1993). Tourism and conservation in Indonesia and Malaysia. In

D.B. Weaver (Eds.), Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. (pp. 160-179). New York:

CAB INTERNATIONAL.

Cole, S., & Stable, M.J. (Eds.). (1997). Tourism & Sustainability: Principles to

Practice. London, UK: Biddles Ltd.

Croall, J. (1995). Preserve or Destroy? Tourism and the Environment. London:

Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Daily, G. & Ehrilich, P. (1992). Population, Sustainability and the earth’s carrying

capacity. Bioscience, 42(10), 761-771.

193

De Kadt, E. (1992). Making the alternatives sustainable: lessons from

development for tourism. In V. Smith & W. Eadington (Eds.), Tourism Alternatives:

Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism (pp. 47-75). Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Drake, S., & Whelan, T. (Eds.). (1991). Nature Tourism: Managing for the

Environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Dredge, D., & Moore, S. (1992). A methodology for the integration of tourism in

town planning. Journal of Tourism Studies, 3(1), 8-21.

Epler Wood, M., Gatz, F., & Lindberg, K. (1991). The Ecotourism Society: An

action agenda. In J. Kusler (Ed.), Ecotourism and resource conservation (pp. 75-79).

Madison: Omnipress.

Erisman, H. (1983). Tourism and cultural dependency in the West Indies. Annals

of Tourism Research, 10, 337-361.

Farrell, B., & McLellan, R.W. (1987). Tourism and physical environment

research. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(1), 1-16.

Fennell, D.A. (1999). Ecotourism: an introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis

Group.

Fox, K.J. (1987). Real punks and pretenders: The social organization of a counter

culture. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16(3), 344-370.

Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of sustainable tourism?

Tourism Management, 19(3), 199-212.

194

Giongo, F., Nizeye, J.B., & Wallace, G.N. (1994). A Study of Visitor

Management in the World’s National Parks and Protected Areas. North Bennington: The

Ecotourism Society.

Gunn, C.A. (1994). Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. Washington:

Taylor & Francis.

Harper, P., & Stabler, M.J. (Eds.). (1997) Tourism Sustainabilty: Principles to

Practice. London, UK: Biddles Ltd.

Hawk, Z., & Williams, P. (1993). The Greening of Tourism-from principles to

practice, GLOBE’ 92 Tourism Stream: Case Book of Best Practice in Sustainable

Tourism. Sustainable Tourism, Industry, Science and Technology, Canada, and the

Center for Tourism Policy and Research, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC.

Heeley, J. (1981). Planning for tourism in Britain. Town Planning Review, 52, 61-

79.

Iaonnides, D. (1995). Strengthening the ties between tourism and economic

geography: a theoretical agenda. Professional Geographer, 47(1), 49-60.

Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable

Development Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

(IUCN) (1992). Protected Areas of the World: A Review of National Systems. Gland,

Switzerland: World Conservation Union.

International Resources Group. (1992). Ecotourism: A viable alternative for

sustainable management of natural resources in Africa, Washington DC, June 1992 (No.

PCD-5517-00-I-0104-00). Washington DC: Author.

195

Jamal, T.B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism

planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186-204.

Jansen-Verbeke, M.,, & Dietvorst, A. (1987). Leisure, recreation, tourism: a

geographic view on integration. Annals of Tourism Research, 14, 361-375.

Julakarn, T. (1996, September). Life, Mountains and Streams in the Khiriwong

Village. Tourism Authority of Thailand Magazine, 2, 93-141.

Keane, M. (1992). Rural tourism and rural development. In H. Briassoulis & J.

Van der Straaten (Eds.), Tourism and the Environment: Regional, Economic and Policy

Issues (pp. 44-55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Keller, C.P. (1987). Stages of Peripheral Tourism Development-Canada’s

Northwest Territories. Tourism Management, 8(1), 20-32.

Lane, B. (1990). Development sustainable rural tourism: paper at Planning and

Tourism in Harmony. The Irish National Planning Conference, Newmarket on Fergus,

County Clare, Ireland.

Lime, D.W. & Stankey, G.H. (1971). Carrying capacity: maintaining outdoor

recreation quality, in Forest Recreation Symposium Proceedings. Upper Darby: Northeast

Forest Experimental Station.

Lindberg, K. (1991). Policy for Maximizing Nature Tourism’s Ecological and

Economic Benefits. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Liu, J. (1994). Pacific islands ecotourism: A public policy and planning guide.

Pacific Business Center Program, University of Hawaii.

Lozano, W.G., & Foltz, T.G. (1990). Into the darkness: An ethnographic study of

witchcraft and death. Qualitative Sociology, 13(3), 211-234).

196

Mansperger, M.C. (1995). Tourism and cultural change in small-scale societies.

Human Organization, 54(1), 87-94.

Marthienson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social

Impacts. London: Longman.

McNeely, J., & Dobias, R. (1991). Economic incentives for conserving in

Thailand. Ambio, 20(2), 86-90.

Milne, S.S. (1998). Tourism and sustainable development: exploring the global-

local nexus. In C.M. Hall & A.A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical

Perspective (pp. 35-48). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Murphy, P.E. (1985). Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.

Myers, J. (1992). Nonmainstream body modifications: Genital piercing, branding,

burning and cutting. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 21(13), 267-306).

Nicoara, A. (1992). Ecotourism: Trojan horse or savior of the last, best place?

Travel Matters, 4.

Page, S., & Thorn, K. (1998). Sustainable tourism development and planning in

New Zealand: local government responses. In C.M. Hall & A.A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable

Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 173-184). New York: Addison Wesley

Longman.

Pearce, D. (1995). Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis (2nd.). New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Pedersen, A. (1991). Issues, problems, and lessons learned from ecotourism

planning projects. In: J. Kusler (Ed.), Ecotourism and resource conservation (pp. 61-74).

197

Selected papers from the 2nd International Symposium: Ecotourism and Resource

Conservation, Madison: Omnipress.

Pigram, J.J. (1990). Sustainable tourism-Policy considerations. Journal of

Tourism Studies, 1, 2-9.

Place, S.E. (1998). How sustainable is ecotourism in Costa Rica?. In C.M. Hall &

A.A. Lew (Eds.), Sustainable Tourism: A Geography Perspective (pp. 107-118). New

York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Priestley, K.G., Coccossis, H., & Dwards, J.A. (1996). Sustainable Tourism?

European Experiences. London, UK: Biddles Ltd.

Repetto, R., & Lindberg, K. (Eds.). (1991). Policies for Maximizing Nature

Tourism’s Ecological and economic Benefits. USA: World Resources Institute.

Romelril, M. (1989). Tourism and the environment-accord or discord? Tourism

Management, 10(3), 204-208.

Ross, S., & Wall, G. (1999). Ecotourism: toward congruence between theory and

practice. Tourism Management, 20, 123-132.

Rubin, J. H., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The art of hearing

data. California: Publications, Inc.

Ryel, R., Grasse, T. (1991). Marketing Ecotourism: Attracting the Elusive

Ecotourist. In T. Whelan (Eds.), Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment (pp.

164-186). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities.

Tourism Management, 20, 245-249.

198

Shelby, B., & Heberlein, T.A. (1984). A conceptual framework for carrying

capacity determination. Leisure Sciences, 6(4), 443-451.

Stewart-Cox, B. (1995). Wild Thailand. In D.B. Weaver (Eds.), Ecotourism in the

Less Developed World. (pp. 160-179). New York: CAB INTERNATIONAL.

Stotdard, P.H. (1993). Community theory: new perspectives for the 1990s.

Journal of Applied Social Sciences 1(1), 13-29.

Swarbrooke, J. (1999). Sustainable Tourism Management. UK, London: Biddles

Ltd, Guildford and King’s Lynn.

Teague, P. (1990). The political economy of the regulation school and the flexible

specialization scenario. Journal of Economic Studies, 17(5), 32-54.

The National Park Bureau, the Forestry Department. (1991). Statement for

Management, the Khao Luang National Park, Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, 1991. the

Misnistry of Agriculture: Author.

Tourism Manual to the Khao Luang National Park. (2000). The Khao Luang

National Park. [Brochure]. Tourism Authority of Thailand: Author.

Tourism Manual to the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park.

(1998). Guidelines for visitors for village and park tourism [Brochure]. the Ecotourism

Club: Author.

Travis, A. (1988). Alternative tourism, Naturopa, 59, 25-27.

Valentine, P.S. (1992). Review: Nature-based tourism. In B. Weiler & C.M. Hall

(Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 24-35). London, UK: Belhaven Press.

199

Van der Straaten, J. (1992). Appropriate tourism in mountain areas. In H.

Briassoulis & J. Van der Straaten (Eds.), Tourism and Environment: Regional, Economic

and Policy Issues (pp. 86-96). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Volk, H. (1993). FOREST GARDENS IN SUDTHAILAND: Kultur und

Okologie eines traditionellen Agroforestsystems bei Ban Khiri Wong. [Forest Gardens in

the south of Thailand: Culture and Ecology of traditional Agroforestsystems in the

Village of Khiriwong]. Heidelberg: Geographic Institute of Ruprecht-Karls University.

Wall, G. (1993). International Collaboration in the Search for Sustainable

Tourism in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 39-47.

Wallace, G.N., & Pierce, S.M. (1996). An evolution of ecotourism in Amazonas,

Brazil. Annal of Tourism Reseach, 23(4), 843-873.

Ward, L.T. (1999). Towards sustainable tourism development: observations from

a distance. Tourism Management, 20, 187-188).

Weaver, D.B. (1998). Ecotourism in the Less Developed World. London, UK:

Biddles Ltd.

Wheeler, B. (1992). Is progressive tourism appropriate? Tourism Management,

13(1), 104-105.

Whelan, T. (1991). Nature Tourism: Managing for the Environment. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Widener, P. (1996, September). Green boom curries favor: the Tourism Authority

of Thailand (TAT) is facing a tough juggling act promoting ecotourism whilst limiting

damage to the country’s eco-spots. PATA Travel News , 22-36.

200

Wight, P. (1998). Tools for sustainability analysis in planning and managing

tourism and recreation in the destination. In Hall, C.M. & Lew, A.A. (Eds.), Sustainable

Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 73-91) New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Wilkinson, P., & Pratiwi, W. (1995). Gender and tourism in an Indonesia village.

Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), 283-299.

William, A.M., & Shaw, G. (1995). Tourism and regional development:

polarization and new forms of production in the United Kingdom. Tijdschrift voor

Ecomomische en Sociale Geografie, 86(1), 50-63.

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common

Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) & the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (1990). Caring for the World: A

Strategy for Sustainability. Washington, DC: WWF.

World Resources Institute (1991, February). Policies for Maximizing Nature

Tourism’s Ecological and Economic Benefits (Issue Brief No.91-065128). USA: Author.

World Resources Institute (1994). World Resouces 1994-95. New York: Oxford

University Press.

WTO (1996). Yearbook of Tourism Statistics (vol, 1). World Tourism

Organization, Madrid: Author.

WTO (1999). Tourism Market Trends 1999 Edition: East Asia & the Pacific.

World Tourism Organization, Madrid: Author.

Ziffer, K. (1989). Ecotourism: The uneasy alliance. Working Paper Series,

Washington, DC: Conservation International.

201

Appendix A

b. Fruit cultivation and consumption

f. Overnight in the village

2. What did you like most about the village stay?

e. Nice weather f. Being daring and adventuresome

4.

Visitors to the Village of Khiriwong

Dear the visitors to the Village of Khiriwong:

You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

1. What are your motivations for visiting the Village of Khiriwong?

(Please circle one or more.) Khiriwong Village

a. Handicrafts, souvenirs

c. Natural landscapes, environment d. Local people, way of life e. Village history

g. Cultural activities h. Other_______________________________________________________________

a. Experiencing new and different lifestyles b. Trying local foods c. Hospitality of villagers d. Rainforest scenery

g. New things and knowledge h. New kind of tourism i. Meeting people with similar interests j. Other_______________________________________________________________

3. What did you dislike about the village stay? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What kind of gifts, souvenirs and services would you like to have available? Gifts and souvenirs

a. Shirts printed “Khiriwong” b. Key holders c. Books and other printed materials about “Khiriwong” d. Other_______________________________________________________________

202

Services a. Grocery stores g. Post office b. Laundry service h. Car rental c. Pubs and bars i. Weather forecasts d. Internet café j. Gambling e. Local and long distance telephones k. Other____________________________ f. Popular franchised fast food service like McDonalds

5. What are you expectations from the trips to the village? a. True relaxation b. Learning about way of life and culture c. Viewing new landscapes

h. Other_______________________________________________________________

Please select two (2) elements.

a. Tourism which has social equity and community involvement

f. Tourism which is based upon activities or designs which reflect the character of an area

g. Other_______________________________________________________________

7. What is the local guides’ training and ability? a. Friendly b. Knowledgeable about ecology and environment c. Knowledgeable about the plants and animals d. Knowledgeable about the local culture

d. Meeting new people e. Being close to nature f. Doing something new g. Having fun and being entertained

6. Which two (2) of the following elements of sustainable ecotourism do you believe the

village best meets:

Khiriwong Village

b. Tourism which maintains the full range of recreational, educational and cultural opportunities within and across generations

c. Tourism which allows the guest to gain an understanding of the region visited d. Tourism which encourages guests to be concerned about, the protective of the host

community and environment e. Tourism which is concerned with the quality of experiences

e. Helpful f. Other_______________________________________________________________

8. How did you travel to the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat? a. Bus b. Car c. Train d. Plane e. Other_______________________________________________________________

9. How did you travel to the village? a. Bus b. Car c. Walk d. Other_______________________________________________________________

203

10. What is your length of stay in the village?

a. Less than one day e. One week b. One day f. More than one week c. Two days g. Other____________________________ d. Three to five days

11. How did you stay in the village?

b. Two

a. Advertisement in travel magazine

16. The name of the place of your origination________________________________________

18. What is your average income per month?

c. Between US$ 201 and US$ 300 (Baht 7,638 – Baht 11,400)

a. I did not stay in the village. b. Camping, tents c. Home-stay d. Other_______________________________________________________________

12. Number of people in your travel party to the village: a. Only yourself

c. Three d. More than three people e. Other_______________________________________________________________

13. How did you learn about the Village of Khiriwong?

b. Word of mouth c. Friends d. Web site e. Travel agents f. Other_______________________________________________________________

14. You are a. Male b. Female 15. What is your nationality? a. Thai b. Asian c. Western d. Other______________

17. What is your occupation?

a. Student b. Government service c. Employee d. Self-employed e. Unemployed f. Other_______________________________________________________________

a. Less than US$ 100 a month (approximately Baht 3,800) b. Between US$ 101 and US$ 200 (Baht 3,838 – Baht 7,600)

d. Between US$ 301 and US$ 400 (Baht 11,438 – Baht 15,200) e. Between US$ 401 and US$ 500 (Baht 15,238 – Baht 19,000) f. More than US$ 501 (Baht 19,038)

204

19. Age: a. 10-19 years

d. 40-49 years

e. Not satisfied

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. 20-29 years c. 30-39 years

e. 50-59 years f. Over 60 years

20. Do you think you will travel to the Village of Khiriwong again? a. Yes b. No

21. Overall, are you satisfied with the village tourism? (Please circle one)

a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Partially satisfied

22. Please provide any other suggestion and comments of your visit.

205

Appendix B

Thank you very much for your contribution.

h. Other__________________________________________________________________

(Please circle one or more)

c. Exhibitions

f. Park staff, guides

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Visitors to the Khao Luang National Park

Dear the visitors to the Khao Luang National Park: You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

1. What were your motivations for visiting Khao Luang National Park?

(Please circle one or more.) a. Diversity of vegetation such as certain kinds of ferns, etc. b. Short rainforest walks c. Wildlife viewing such as bird watching d. Rainforest day trips e. National Park sightseeing f. Waterfalls, streams g. Mountains

2. What did you like most about the park?

a. Landscapes, geographic location, mountains b. Natural beauty, waterfalls and streams

d. Native wild plants, unknown and unseen vegetation, etc. e. Native wild animals such as hornbills, tree-dwelling animals, etc.

g. Climate or weather h. Other__________________________________________________________________

3. What did you dislike about the park?

4. What kind of gifts, souvenirs and services would you like to have available in the park?

(Please circle one or more)

Gifts and souvenirs a. Shirts printed “Khao Luang National Park” b. Key holders c. Books and other printed materials about “Khao Luang National Park” d. Other___________________________________________________________

206

Services a. Grocery stores g. Post office b. Laundry service h. Car rental c. Pubs and bars i. Weather Forecasts d. Internet café j. Gambling e. Local and long distance telephone k. Other____________________

best meet?

7. According to your experience, which characteristics did the park provide the best?

f. Franchised fast food like McDonalds

5. What are your expectations about the trip to the park? (Please circle one or more) a. True relaxation b. Leaning about way of life and culture c. Viewing new landscapes d. Meeting new people e. Being close to nature f. Doing something new g. Having fun and being entertained h. Other__________________________________________________________________

6. Which two (2) of the following elements of sustainable ecotourism you believe the park

Please circle two (2) elements.

a. Tourism which has social equity and community involvement b. Tourism which maintains the full range of recreational, educational and cultural

opportunities within and across generations c. Tourism which allows the guest to gain an understanding of the region visited d. Tourism which encourages guests to be concerned about, the protective of the

host community and environment e. Tourism which is concerned with the quality of experiences f. Tourism which is based upon activities or designs which reflect the character of an area g. Tourism which supports and sustains local ecosystems h. Other__________________________________________________________________

(Please circle one or more) a. Knowledgeable local guides b. Using guides native to visited area c. Providing a pre-arrival information packet d. Participating in local clean-up programs e. Pack-it-out requirement f. Group size of visitors to the park g. Activities sensitive to plants and animals h. Waste disposal i. Management plans for lodging accommodation j. Other__________________________________________________________________

207

8. What is the local guides’ training and ability? (Please circle one or more) a. Friendly b. Knowledgeable about ecology and environment c. Knowledgeable about the plants and animals d. Knowledgeable about the local culture e. Helpful f. Other__________________________________________________________________

9. How did you travel to the Province of Nakhon Si Thammarat? a. Bus d. Plane b. Car e. Other_______________________________________

a. Bus

12. How did you stay in the park?

c. Three

14. How did you learn about the Khao Luang National Park?

c. Friends

c. Train

10. How did you travel from the Province of Nakhon Si Thammart to the park?

b. Car c. Walk d. Other__________________________________________________________________

11. What is your length of stay in the park? a. Less than one day b. One day c. Two days d. Three to five days e. One week f. More than one week g. Other__________________________________________________________________

a. Camping, tent b. Cabin c. Other__________________________________________________________________

13. Number of people in your travel party to the par k: a. Only yourself b. Two

d. More than three people e. Other__________________________________________________________________

(Please circle one or more) a. Advertisement in travel magazines b. Word of mouth

d. Web site e. Travel agents f. Other__________________________________________________________________

15. You are: a. Male b. Female 16. What is your nationality? a. Thai b. Asian c. Western d. Other____________________________

208

17. The name of the place of your origination_____________________________________

b. Government Service

f. More than US$ 501 (Baht 19,038)

b. 20-29 years

d. 40-49 years

18. What is your occupation?

a. Student

c. Employee d. Self-employed e. Unemployed f. Other__________________________________________________________________

19. What is your average income per month?

a. Less than US$ 100 a month (approximately Baht 3,800) b. Between US$ 101 and US$ 200 (Baht 3,838 – 7,600) c. Between US$ 201 and US$ 300 (Baht 7,638 – 11,400) d. Between US$ 301 and US$ 400 (Baht 11,438 – 15,200) e. Between US$ 401 and US$ 500 (Baht 15,238 – 19,000)

20. Age:

a. 10-19 years

c. 30-39 years

e. 50-59 years f. Over 60 years

21. Do you think you will travel to the Khao Luang National Park again?

a. Yes b. No

22. Overall, are you satisfied with the park tourism? (Please circle one)

a. Very satisfied b. Satisfied c. Neutral d. Partially satisfied e. Not satisfied

23. Please provide any other suggestion and comment of your visit. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

209

Appendix C

Dear Environmental Professionals: You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

Interview Questions: Ecologists and Environmentalists

The Village of Khiriwong

1. In your opinion, what is the most appropriate mode of transport required to travel to the Village of Khiriwong? a. Off-road b. Four-wheel c. Walk d. Other__________________________________________________________________

2. In your perspective, what is the maximum member of visitors to the Village of Khiriwong should accommodate each year? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How should the Village of Khiriwong manage waste disposal? a. Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat b. Bury on property c. Municipal garbage system d. Municipal recycle garbage system e. Free disposal f. Burn g. Compost h. Pit i. Other__________________________________________________________________

4. Describe how the Village of Khiriwong should design its architectural style and facilities: a. Homestay b. Camping c. Resort complex d. Hotel/motel e. Caravan f. Cottage g. Farmhouse h. Cabins i. Other_________________________________________________________________

210

5. How should the Village of Khiriwong provide information given to visitors about the appropriate behavior favorable to the environment? a. Brochures b. Internet web site c. Post desired behavior d. Travel magazines

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. On the spot or before touring f. Other__________________________________________________________________

6. What are the impacts of tourism caused by the village on ecosystem? a. Wildlife disturbance b. Noise c. Walking off the natural trails d. Pollution caused by the vehicles e. Wastes f. Other__________________________________________________________________ Please provide your recommendations for the solution. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Do you agree with the tourism programs provided by the Village of Khiriwong? a. Yes b. No Please explain your answer.

8. What are your ideal trips to the Village of Khiriwong?

a. The trip that causes no harm to the village and the surroundings b. The trip that causes no annoyance to the villagers c. The trip that the visitors can reciprocally learn and practice the villagers’ way of life d. Other__________________________________________________________________ Please provide any additional description different from above. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. You are: a. Male b. Female

10. Your occupation and position:________________________________________________

11. Your age:___________________________________________________________________

211

Appendix D

Dear Environmental Professionals: You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

Thank you very much for your contribution. The Khao Luan

Interview Questions: Ecologists and Environmentalists

g National Park

1. In your opinion, what is the most appropriate mode of transport required to travel to

d. Other__________________________________________________________________

2. In your perspective, what is the maximum member of visitors the Khao Luang National

the Khao Luang National Park? a. Off-road b. Four-wheel c. Walk

should accommodate each year? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How should the Khao Luang National Park manage waste disposal? a. Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat b. Bury on property c. Municipal garbage system d. Municipal recycle garbage system e. Free disposal f. Burn g. Compost h. Pit i. Other__________________________________________________________________

4. Describe how the Khao Luang National Park should design its architectural style and facilities: a. Camping b. Wilderness lodge c. Resort complex d. Hotel/Motel e. Caravan f. Cottage g. Farmhouse h. Cabins i. Other___________________________________________________________________

212

5. How should the Khao Luang National Park provide information given to visitors about the appropriate behavior favorable to he environment? a. Brochures b. Internet Web Site c. Post desired behavior d. Travel magazines e. On the spot or before touring f. Other__________________________________________________________________

6. What are the impacts of tourism caused by the park on ecosystem? a. Wildlife disturbance b. Noise c. Walking off the natural trails d. Pollution caused by the vehicles e. Wastes f. Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers g. Other__________________________________________________________________ Please provide your recommendations for the solution. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7. Do you agree with the tourism programs to the protected areas provided by the park? a. Yes b. No Please explain your answer. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. What is your ideal conservation trip to protected areas? a. The trip that causes no harm to nature

d. Other__________________________________________________________________

b. The trip that causes no annoyance to the wildlife c. The trip that the visitors can learn the values of the ecosystems

Please provide any additional description different from above. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. You are: a. Male b. Female

10. Your occupation and position:_______________________________________________ 11. Your age:__________________________________________________________________

213

Appendix E

b. Bury on property

b. Internet Web Site

Interview questions: the Khao Luang National Park staff

Dear the park authorities of the Khao Luang National Park: You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of

Khiriwong and Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

1. What is the regular mode of transport and equipment required to travel to the park?

a. Walk b. Truck c. Four-wheel car d. Off-road e. Other_______________________________________________________________

2. In your opinion, what is the maximum number of visitors the park should allow each year? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How does the park manage waste disposal? a. Ship back to the City of Nakhon Si Thammarat

c. Municipal garbage system d. Municipal recycle garbage system e. Free disposal f. Burn g. Compost h. Pit i. Other_______________________________________________________________

4. Describe how the park designed its architectural style and facilities: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. How do park staffs provide information about the park and protected areas to visitors in term of environmental conservation? a. Brochures

c. Post desired behavior d. Travel magazines e. On spot or before touring f. Other_______________________________________________________________

214

6. What are the environmental impacts of activities caused by the park on ecosystems? a. Wildlife disturbance b. Noise

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. What is your average income per month?

f. More than US$ 501 (Bhat 19,038)

c. Walking off the natural trails d. Pollution caused by the vehicles e. Wastes f. Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers g. Other_______________________________________________________________

7. Do you agree that tourism can be used as a means to protect the park? a. Yes b. No Please explain your answer. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

8. Is there any collaborative relationship between the Khao Luang National Park and the Village of Khiriwong? a. Yes b. No Please explain your answer. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

9. In your opinion, what are the ideal trips to protected areas for visitors?

10. Please describe any suggestions for improving the experience of park visitors at the

Khao Luang National Park: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Please describe any suggestions for mitigating the impacts of park visitors on the ecosystems of the Khao Luang National Park: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a. Less than US$ 100 a month (approximately Bhat 3,800) b. Between US$ 101 and US$ 200 (Bhat 3,838 – 7,600) c. Between US$ 201 and US$ 300 (Bhat 7,638 – 11,400) d. Between US$ 301 and US$ 400 (Bhat 11,438 – 15,200) e. Between US$ 401 and US$ 500 (Bhat 15,238 – 19,000)

13. You are: a. Male b. Female 14. Your occupation and position:_____________________________________________ 15. Your age:________________________________________________________________

215

Appendix F

You are an important part of a study about “Sustainable Ecotourism in the Village of Khiriwong and the Khao Luang National Park, Thailand”. This study is conducted by Kitsada Tungchawal for a master’s degree thesis in Hospitality and Tourism Program at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA. Please answer the following questions. All individual information will be kept confidential. The collective data will be beneficial to the Village and Park for future developmental considerations.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

a. Much impact on local employment has happened after the advent of tourism to the village.

Interview Questions: Local Residents of the Khiriwong Village

Dear Local Residents of the Khiriwong Village:

Thank you very much for your contribution.

1. Tourism has most impacted which aspect of your village: (Please circle one or more.) a. Ecological aspect b. Economic aspect c. Political aspects d. Social aspect Please explain your answer.

2. Identify the impact of tourism on local employment in the village?

b. Moderate impact on local employment has happened after the advent of tourism to the village.

c. No impact on local employment has happened after the advent of tourism to the village.

Please explain your answer. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. How do the economic benefits from tourism support the services to the village?

a. Improved infrastructure such as water, electricity, telephone etc. b. Improved health center c. Improved veterinary services d. Other____________________________________________________________

4. Most villagers are involved in which aspects of tourism:

a. Supply of goods and services b. Sale of handicrafts c. Traditional entertainment and activity d. Other____________________________________________________________

216

5. How do the villagers utilize their natural resources to support tourism? a. Water use and conservation b. Energy c. Recycling d. Other____________________________________________________________

6. What are the local attitudes about sustainable ecotourism?

a. Positive b. Negative c. Do not care d. Other____________________________________________________________

7. What does the village still need to support sustainable ecotourism?

a. Access to goods and services b. Quality access to health care c. Education d. Communication infrastructure e. Transportation infrastructure f. Other____________________________________________________________

8. How has the villagers’ quality of life been influenced by the advent of tourism?

a. Better education b. Better living

Khao Luang National Park?

c. Better income d. Other____________________________________________________________

9. What are the negative impacts caused by tourism on the village?

a. Local culture has been altered. b. The villagers’ life style has been changed. c. Increased garbage and wastes d. Demands on local resources e. Other____________________________________________________________

10. Is there any collaborative relationship between the Village of Khiriwong and the

a. Yes b. No

Please explain your answer. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

11. Please describe any improvements in operation of the village, which would

benefit the environment. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. What is your average income per month?

a. Less than US$ 100 a month (approximately Baht 3,800) b. Between US$ 101 and US$ 200 (Baht 3,838 – Baht 7,600) c. Between US$ 201 and US$ 300 (Baht 7,638 – Baht 11,400) d. Between US$ 301 and US$ 400 (Baht 11,438 – Baht 15,200) e. Between US$ 401 and US$ 500 (Baht 15,238 – Baht 19,000) f. More than US$ 501 (Baht 19,038)

217

13. You are: a. Male b. Female 14. Your occupation:______________________________________________________ 15. Your age:____________________________________________________________